PDA

View Full Version : Garland Signs 1-year $2.3M Deal


joecrede
11-24-2003, 04:04 PM
Per ESPN Radio. A fair deal for both sides I think.

Tekijawa
11-24-2003, 04:18 PM
Boy Garland and Dransfelt all in one day?!?!? I hope they slow down before the roster is full of perenial all-stars and future hall of famers!

CubKilla
11-24-2003, 04:22 PM
I guess $2.3 million must be the going rate for mediocre, .500 pitchers this offseason in the eyes of the White Sox Organization.

Scotty347
11-24-2003, 04:31 PM
From my ticket rep:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 24, 2003

JON GARLAND SIGNS ONE-YEAR CONTRACT


CHICAGO – The Chicago White Sox and pitcher Jon Garland have agreed to terms on a $2.3 million, one-year contract, avoiding arbitration.

Garland, 24, went 12-13 with a 4.51 ERA (96 ER/191.2 IP) in 32 starts for the White Sox in 2003. The 6-foot-6, 210-pound right-hander lowered his ERA nearly three runs after May 8, going 10-10 with a 3.97 ERA (69 ER/156.1 IP) over his final 25 starts. He made 18 quality starts and matched his career high in wins (12 in 2002).

Garland is averaging 11 wins, 190.1 IP, 108 strikeouts and 31 starts over his three-year career.

jeremyb1
11-24-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I guess $2.3 million must be the going rate for mediocre, .500 pitchers this offseason in the eyes of the White Sox Organization.

Would you have rather non-tendered him?

hold2dibber
11-24-2003, 04:51 PM
That's a little more than I thought they'd need to spend to keep him out of arbitration - I was figuring between $1.5 and $2 million. What does this signing say about how much the Sox would be willing to pay Buehrle?

hold2dibber
11-24-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I guess $2.3 million must be the going rate for mediocre, .500 pitchers this offseason in the eyes of the White Sox Organization.

The dollar amount is likely indicative of the approximate amount that the Sox think he could earn in arbitration. Without doing the research to see what types of contracts pitchers with similar results/experience have earned over the past few years (which, I would assume, the Sox have done), it's hard to criticize the Sox for this move (unless, as Jeremy points out, you think the Sox should have just cut him loose).

Tekijawa
11-24-2003, 05:00 PM
I have a question??? What math are they using to fit all these contracts into their 55-60 Million dollar budget? So far I like it, but what happens when Jerry finds out and decides to actually go by this number?

So Far:
Magglio Ordonez—$14
Paul Konerko—$8
Carlos Lee—$7.25*
Billy Koch—$6.37
Frank Thomas—$6
Esteban Loaiza—$4
Mark Buehrle—$3.5*
Jose Valentin-$5
Jon Garland-$2.3
Total-$56.42

* estimated

I don't know how we are going to get the remaining 16 guys to play for negative moeny?

hold2dibber
11-24-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Tekijawa
I have a question??? What math are they using to fit all these contracts into their 55-60 Million dollar budget? So far I like it, but what happens when Jerry finds out and decides to actually go by this number?

So Far:
Magglio Ordonez—$14
Paul Konerko—$8
Carlos Lee—$7.25*
Billy Koch—$6.37
Frank Thomas—$6
Esteban Loaiza—$4
Mark Buehrle—$3.5*
Jose Valentin-$5
Jon Garland-$2.3
Total-$56.42

* estimated

I don't know how we are going to get the remaining 16 guys to play for negative moeny?

Exactly. Dealing Maggs (or some other hi-priced players) isn't needed to free up money to sign free agents - it's needed just to get down to budget without any significant additions. KW is going to have to find a way to move some serious salary, and he may have to non-tender some people (Schoenweiss, Wunsch, ???).

nasox
11-24-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Tekijawa
So Far:
Magglio Ordonez—$14
Paul Konerko—$8
Carlos Lee—$7.25*
Billy Koch—$6.37
Frank Thomas—$6
Esteban Loaiza—$4
Mark Buehrle—$3.5*
Jose Valentin-$5
Jon Garland-$2.3
Total-$56.42


More and more, this looks like the upcoming season is going to be very sad. VERY VERY SAD. I don't know how KW will pull this one off.

Tekijawa
11-24-2003, 05:21 PM
I bet they see how many people show up to the first 5 home games... then they sell the seats that no one is sitting in for $50 A POP to those poor sould that waited out side this past weekend!

Just an idea... Maybe we could offerDaubach about 8 million to come back next season, we like to sign people for more than their worth so it would be right in line!

IOWA SOXMAN
11-24-2003, 05:37 PM
Garland still has a lot of upside. I fully expect him to be a consistent 15 game winner. He will flourish under Ozzie and Cooper. JM really drug Garland down.

Soxfest
11-24-2003, 05:58 PM
Garland needs to step it up bigtime this year

jeremyb1
11-24-2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Soxfest
Garland needs to step it up bigtime this year

I don't think that most people appretiate the fact that Garland has been an above average starting pitcher. Furthermore, his BB/KK ratio has improved for three consecutive seasons now. I know some people have had very high expectations but you have to understand that even if Garland hasn't pitched as well as he's capable he's still a valuable piece.

gosox41
11-24-2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Exactly. Dealing Maggs (or some other hi-priced players) isn't needed to free up money to sign free agents - it's needed just to get down to budget without any significant additions. KW is going to have to find a way to move some serious salary, and he may have to non-tender some people (Schoenweiss, Wunsch, ???).

I have a bad feeling that this team is seriously screwed. We'll see how good KW really is this offseason.

Bob

MisterB
11-24-2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I don't think that most people appretiate the fact that Garland has been an above average starting pitcher.

That would be because he isn't above average.

Jon Garland
2002: 12-12, 4.58 era (league era 4.60)
2003: 12-13, 4.51 era (league era 4.48)

That's practically the definition of average.

doublem23
11-24-2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
That would be because he isn't above average.

Jon Garland
2002: 12-12, 4.58 era (league era 4.60)
2003: 12-13, 4.51 era (league era 4.48)

That's practically the definition of average.

ERA isn't the only stat to measure pitchers by.

Dub25
11-24-2003, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Exactly. Dealing Maggs (or some other hi-priced players) isn't needed to free up money to sign free agents - it's needed just to get down to budget without any significant additions. KW is going to have to find a way to move some serious salary, and he may have to non-tender some people (Schoenweiss, Wunsch, ???).

:whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

Dub25
11-24-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Tekijawa
I have a question??? What math are they using to fit all these contracts into their 55-60 Million dollar budget? So far I like it, but what happens when Jerry finds out and decides to actually go by this number?

So Far:
Magglio Ordonez—$14
Paul Konerko—$8
Carlos Lee—$7.25*
Billy Koch—$6.37
Frank Thomas—$6
Esteban Loaiza—$4
Mark Buehrle—$3.5*
Jose Valentin-$5
Jon Garland-$2.3
Total-$56.42

* estimated
This is not good :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

I don't know how we are going to get the remaining 16 guys to play for negative moeny?

joepoe
11-24-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
That would be because he isn't above average.

Jon Garland
2002: 12-12, 4.58 era (league era 4.60)
2003: 12-13, 4.51 era (league era 4.48)

That's practically the definition of average.
$2.3 mill is about 200k per win? To buy 90 wins we need to pay the pitching staff $18.2 million? Let's go for it!!

awesomefan
11-24-2003, 08:17 PM
Hurray for signing Big Jon Garland.

Joepoe: I love your concept....hehehehehehehehe

MisterB
11-24-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
ERA isn't the only stat to measure pitchers by.

It ain't great, but by what measure would Garland be considered "above average"?

dugwood31
11-24-2003, 08:38 PM
How old's Garland? 23? 24?

If he's average right now, doesn't that bode well for the future? He's never been injured.

MarkEdward
11-24-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
It ain't great, but by what measure would Garland be considered "above average"?

Well, one could go by ERA+ (this takes into account park factors and such):

'01: 125 ERA+
'02: 101 ERA+
'03: 99 ERA+

So you're pretty much right, he's been league average. I'm kind of disappointed in Garland's drop in strikeouts and rise in homers in 2003. He did lower his walk rate, which is good I suppose. It's still a bit too high, though.

CubKilla
11-24-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by dugwood31
How old's Garland? 23? 24?

If he's average right now, doesn't that bode well for the future? He's never been injured.

I'm off the just-give-Jon-more-time-bandwagon. I've said it too for the past 3 seasons and have been more disappointed in JG and his minimal at best improvement each season. In that time, JG's consistency has been spotty at best. JM's handling of JG may have had something to do with it but JM wasn't the one throwing for JG. The only thing Garland has going for him right now is his age. I stand by my assertion that JG is a number 5 starter.

Unfortunately, signing JG for more than he's worth and having him as our number 3 (probably) or 4 is the reality when cheering for a team run like a small market ball club.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-24-2003, 11:05 PM
Garland's problems lie between his ears. He is young enough that he might still figure out how to pitch in the major leagues at a high level. So far he has shown no aptitude for pitching effectively game to game. To the contrary he is most noteworthy for giving up walks to hitters he had down 0-2 in the count.

All the great pitchers have been amongst the most driven competitors and smartest ballplayers on the diamond. Time is running out for Jon Garland to show *anything* in either of these departments.

Is Ozzie Guillen the guy to finally get the most out of Jon Garland? I have my doubts. That won't be Earl Weaver talking tough to Jim Palmer out there.

:(:

joecrede
11-24-2003, 11:35 PM
How many pitchers at the ages of 22 & 23 threw more than 190 innings and finished with a league-average ERA the last two years?

dugwood31
11-25-2003, 12:45 AM
Not many. We need to look at things in more of a historical context. Struggle with a guy for 3 years then give up on him when he has gotten better every year, has good stuff, and is still a baby?

And haven't most pitchers on the Sox had their strikeout numbers go down since we hired Coop? Garland probably struck out more guys under Nardi because he nibbled constantly back then.

TaylorStSox
11-25-2003, 02:25 AM
Garland's a stud IMO. He was very good after late may. I wouldn't worry about his strikeouts. A guy with a sinker like that shouldn't strike anybody out. He should be giving up ground ball after ground ball. Solidifying your middle infield will do wonders with a guy like that. Regardless of what anybody says, our corner gloves are very strong.

Patience grasshopper.

jeremyb1
11-25-2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
That would be because he isn't above average.

Jon Garland
2002: 12-12, 4.58 era (league era 4.60)
2003: 12-13, 4.51 era (league era 4.48)

That's practically the definition of average.

First of all, league ERA measures the ERA of the entire league. Garland is a starter and starters tend not to post ERAs as good as relievers. When you look at the entire spectrum of pitchers used as starters in the league Garland would at least be in the upper third. He ranked 65th in MLB in ERA last season. 30 teams x 5 rotation spots per team means there are 150 rotation spots in the big leagues so 65th would be far better than average.

jeremyb1
11-25-2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Garland's problems lie between his ears. He is young enough that he might still figure out how to pitch in the major leagues at a high level. So far he has shown no aptitude for pitching effectively game to game. To the contrary he is most noteworthy for giving up walks to hitters he had down 0-2 in the count.

All the great pitchers have been amongst the most driven competitors and smartest ballplayers on the diamond. Time is running out for Jon Garland to show *anything* in either of these departments.

Is Ozzie Guillen the guy to finally get the most out of Jon Garland? I have my doubts. That won't be Earl Weaver talking tough to Jim Palmer out there.

See those complaints are about how Garland pitches, not the results. I realize it may be frustrating to you to see what you perceive as a monumental failure to capitalize on potential and that you find walks after 0-2 counts frustrating, but that doesn't change the bottom line. Garland has been a useful pitcher in spite of those flaws.

hold2dibber
11-25-2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I'm off the just-give-Jon-more-time-bandwagon. I've said it too for the past 3 seasons and have been more disappointed in JG and his minimal at best improvement each season. In that time, JG's consistency has been spotty at best. JM's handling of JG may have had something to do with it but JM wasn't the one throwing for JG. The only thing Garland has going for him right now is his age. I stand by my assertion that JG is a number 5 starter.

Unfortunately, signing JG for more than he's worth and having him as our number 3 (probably) or 4 is the reality when cheering for a team run like a small market ball club.

Garland would be the best no. 5 starter in baseball. Very few (if any) teams have starting rotations that are so deep that Garland would be a no. 5.

soxfan26
11-25-2003, 08:17 AM
I'm glad we brought Jon back.

IMO we all knew Garland was coming back, the only question was the price tag. Just be glad the Sox didn't lock up any long-term money in him ala GIDPaulie.

The only question is are the Sox relying on him as a middle or back of the rotation guy for '04?

Gumshoe
11-25-2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
See those complaints are about how Garland pitches, not the results. I realize it may be frustrating to you to see what you perceive as a monumental failure to capitalize on potential and that you find walks after 0-2 counts frustrating, but that doesn't change the bottom line. Garland has been a useful pitcher in spite of those flaws.


Because he has been so "young and talented" he has faced the brunt of many Sox critics, because in a sense, HE REPRESENTS all those guys that were supposed to come up and be awesome, but all in one person. JG is solid, I think he'll continue to get better, and he might end up as a SUPER STUD. I personally think he's got the potential to be Cy Young material. You don't let guys like this go. I like his direction, and I will be patient with the results. Go get'em Jonny!

Gumshoe

PaleHoseGeorge
11-25-2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
I like his direction, and I will be patient with the results.

And exactly what direction would that be? I mean, besides the obvious that he is getting older? Paul Konerko was once young and full of potential too, you might recall. However he has never been more than average either.

hold2dibber
11-25-2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
And exactly what direction would that be? I mean, besides the obvious that he is getting older? Paul Konerko was once young and full of potential too, you might recall. However he has never been more than average either.

True - but the Sox haven't made the mistake of signing JG to a big contract, and hopefully they won't until or unlesss he shows consistent excellence (whereas they have GIDPaul his big contract primarily based upon a great first half in '02).

hold2dibber
11-25-2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
See those complaints are about how Garland pitches, not the results. I realize it may be frustrating to you to see what you perceive as a monumental failure to capitalize on potential and that you find walks after 0-2 counts frustrating, but that doesn't change the bottom line. Garland has been a useful pitcher in spite of those flaws.

Jeremy, I completely and entirely agree. Garland is a decent and useful starter. However, in order for the Sox, with their limited payroll budget, to become contenders, young, home grown, cheap guys like Garland simply have to be better than "useful." Maybe it's unfair to him, but if Garland could develop into the consistent excellent starter he has shown flashes of, that would be an absolutely enormous boost to this team's chances of becoming a serious contender. That's where the frustration comes in - the Sox need Jon Garland to be better than "useful."

boog_alou
11-25-2003, 10:05 AM
Many of you keep pointing out how young Garland is and that he should develop into a much better pitcher. I would be more willing to believe this if Garland actually had been improving so far. For the most part, he hasn't. His best season was 2001, and in many respects, he's gone downhill from there.

BB/9 - small improvement from 2002 (an improvment of .4 walks per 9)
K/9 - small decline from 2002
K/BB - somewhat larger improvement
OBP - improved over last three years
SLG - decline from 2002
OPS - decline from 2002
WHIP - improved over last three years
ERA - tiny improvement, worse than 2001
HR/9 & HR/BFP - decline from 2002

Overall, this doesn't look like a pitcher who is improving much (if any) overall. He's allowing fewer walks, but also fewer strike outs. He's allowing fewer hits, but more extra base hits. He's letting fewer guys on base, but not allowing fewer to score.

It looks to me like he is stagnating. When you look at the basic stats which have nothing to do with defense -- walks, strike outs and home runs -- he got worse last year in 2 of the 3 measures.

What's to like about the trend of his numbers overall? Why would one think he's going to improve significantly in 2004?

CubKilla
11-25-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by soxfan26
The only question is are the Sox relying on him as a middle or back of the rotation guy for '04?

Garland will more likely be the #3 starter. If the Sox sign Colon or a Ponson-type, he'll probably be a #4.

Garland should definitely be a back of the rotation guy though.

wsgdf
11-25-2003, 11:18 AM
Why would one think he's going to improve significantly in 2004?

I think you can hope that he would because with a guy who's still 23, you can't just look at ML performance, you also have to look at his tool set.

He still has the stuff, and he has decent control. He really just seems to need a better approach and a confidence boost.

There are no guarantees, but to think that a guy has leveled out to his career norm at 23 I think would be sorely undserestimating the potential for an athlete to improve as he matures both physically and psychologically.

The only question I have is, is what happens if/when he does break out and take a giant leap - especially if he's past his arbitration years. Now you've got to pay him - will you?

By the way - his strikeout, walk and homeun rates aren't vastly different than Mark Buehrle's.

maurice
11-25-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
First of all, league ERA measures the ERA of the entire league. Garland is a starter and starters tend not to post ERAs as good as relievers. When you look at the entire spectrum of pitchers used as starters in the league Garland would at least be in the upper third. He ranked 65th in MLB in ERA last season. 30 teams x 5 rotation spots per team means there are 150 rotation spots in the big leagues so 65th would be far better than average.

Nice post. In addition to what you've said, league ERA (total ER / total IP) also is skewed by the fact that: (1) very-low-ERA starters tend to pitch far more innings than very-high-ERA starters, and (2) NL starters get to pitch to pitchers instead of DHs.

To determine whether Garland's ERA is above-average for a starter, you would have to determine the median ERA of an AL starting pitcher. I suspect that it's much higher than Garland's ERA.

FanOf14
11-25-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by wsgdf
By the way - his strikeout, walk and homeun rates aren't vastly different than Mark Buehrle's.

But Buehrle seems to have the one thing that Garland can't seem to hold on to - courage. This seems to be the one thing that is holding Garland back as he does have the ability. If he gets some courage, I really think he consistency would improve and thusly he would over all improve.

EDIT: WooHoo - I finally hit post #1000! :D:

wsgdf
11-25-2003, 01:00 PM
But Buehrle seems to have the one thing that Garland can't seem to hold on to - courage.

I agree. I also think he will develop it.

There's a lot going on in a 23 year old's head.

These days, a lot of 23 year olds haven't even left Mom and Dad's house yet.

It will come for him.

FanOf14
11-25-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by wsgdf
These days, a lot of 23 year olds haven't even left Mom and Dad's house yet.


See my brother as an example. :o:

I can't come down on him too hard because I was 23 when I moved out (right after I graduated). At least he is still in school, I gotta give my brother that much credit.

wsgdf
11-25-2003, 01:24 PM
See my brother as an example.

LOL - me and my brothers too. In and out a few different times before we finally got it right.

Imagine being that age and having to 'trust' your fastball to Giambi with the bases juiced.

As his successes in these situations mount, the confidence will come, and he'll turn the corner.

:gulp:

Daver
11-25-2003, 04:36 PM
Randy Johnson was not very good with the Expos,nor was he in his first season or so in Seattle.Pitchers tend to reach their potential later than position players.

kempsted
11-25-2003, 04:48 PM
Baseball Prospectus has some cool ways of measuring starting pitchers and has cool things like starters most helped by their relievers and starters most hurt by their relievers. Garland is on the list of 20 top starters HURT by their relievers - i.e. giving up runs he left on ( thereby hurting his ERA) and losing games he was ahead when he left.

Their SNWAR (Support Neutral wins above average replacement has him at 2.1. This is the same number as Mark Buehrle.

Here are some other pitchers with numbers right around Garlands

Harden (A's)1.2
Washburn(Angels) 1.7
Glavin(Mets) 1.8
Wakefield(BoSOx) 1.9
Lowe(BoSox) 2.0
Randy Johnson(Dimondbacks) 2.0
M Clement (Cubs)2.2
Ponson (Bal, Giants)2.4
Pettite (Yankees)2.6
Beckett (Marlins)2.6

Also for contrast Loaiza was 6.6 and Colon at 4.5 (which makes Colon the 16th best pitcher in baseball last season - all of you Colon bashers who look at stupid stats like win loss.

wsgdf
11-25-2003, 05:09 PM
Thanks for the info.

Tragg
11-25-2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I guess $2.3 million must be the going rate for mediocre, .500 pitchers this offseason in the eyes of the White Sox Organization.

Makes a lot more sense than paying jeff weaver $2.3 million - except that people suggested paying him $5+ million and giving up players for the honors of doing so