Time To Play Pin the Pitcher On the Dodgers

January 24, 2009 at 11:38 am | Posted in Ben Sheets, Braden Looper, Jon Garland, Randy Wolf | 26 Comments

We all know that the Dodgers are going to sign a starting pitcher to help replace Brad Penny, Derek Lowe, and Greg Maddux. (No, monkeys – Claudio Vargas and Shawn Estes do not count.) Now, I’ve advocated here several times why Ben Sheets should be that man, especially with his price dropping so far. He’s the only pitcher available who has the chance to be great rather than average, and a team as close as the Dodgers are really ought to be taking a small-money chance on him, even with his injury history. But from everything we’ve heard, Sheets to the Dodgers just isn’t going to be happening. So let’s forget him for the moment and try to make a choice about the guys that have been linked to Los Angeles: Randy Wolf, Braden Looper, and Jon Garland.

We discussed Wolf and Garland in our look at the available free agent pitchers back in December, and I’m still not happy that Randy Johnson went to San Francisco rather than put on the Blue. But really, we always knew that judging whichever one was signed was going to be strongly influenced by the type of deal they’re given. It’s one thing to prefer Garland to Looper with no questions asked; it’s quite another if Garland was expecting four years while Looper only two. However, if you believe Peter Gammons, they’re all coming in on a level playing field:

Essentially Randy Wolf, Jon Garland and Braden Looper are getting similar offers in the range of $5 million per year (plus options and incentives). As of Friday, Wolf was not close to reaching a deal with any team.

So, it seems that the money will be the same, and there’s a 98% chance that one of these men will be wearing Blue next season. That being the case, let’s pick one, so that we can say “I told you so!” when the Dodgers inevitably end up with one of the others. Remember, none of these guys are ace-quality types.

2009 Age!
Looper: 34
Wolf: 32
Garland: 29
Advantage: Garland, by a surprising amount. I had no idea Looper was that old, but then again, he has been around since 1998.

Durability!
Looper: After eight years as a reliever, was converted to starting in 2007; has made 30+ starts in each of his two seasons in the rotation.
Wolf: Missed most of 2005 and 06 after undergoing major arm surgery; after a successful first half in LA in 2007 missed most of the second half with more arm pain. Did bounce back to throw 190 innings last season.
Garland: Seven consecutive years of 30+ starts and 191+ innings. Has never been on the DL.
Advantage: Garland, again. Wolf is less reliable than Sheets (it’s true, look it up) and while Looper hasn’t been hurt, he is the oldest and has a short track record starting.

Production!
Looper: ERA+ of 89 and 102, WHIP of about 1.32 as a starter.
Wolf: ERA+ of 100, 84, 97, 93 the last four seasons. However, he was awful in a great park in San Diego in 2008 (81 ERA+) and fantastic in a tough park in Houston (119 ERA+) after being moved. So, who the hell knows.
Garland: Steady, but boring. After three good years to finish off his White Sox career (128, 105, 112 ERA+) he was lousy in Anaheim last year (91 OPS+, 1.505 WHIP).
Advantage: None. All three of these guys are basically mediocre. Wolf gets it done with more strikeouts than Garland and Looper, but sometimes with less success. Choosing one on this point would be like choosing who’s hottest of Helen Hunt, Brooke Shields, and Katey Sagal: they all get a solid “meh.”

Upside!
Looper: is going to be 34, so there’s not much upside left here.
Wolf: It’s hard to say that a 32-year-old with an injury history has upside, but he was near the top of the NL in strikeouts before he got hurt in 2007. Again, last year’s bizarre performance really skews this – he was fantastic with the Astros, but how could he have been so bad in San Diego?
Garland: none, with the caveat that moving into the NL West from the AL would certainly help him. What you see is what you get: 200 innings of reliable, low-strikeout, roughly average performance.
Advantage: Wolf. I guess.

Bill James 2009 predictions from FanGraphs!
Looper: 11-10, 4.03 in 187 IP
Wolf: 10-12, 4.29 in 195 IP
Garland: 10-11, 4.38 in 186 IP
Advantage: Push. If this doesn’t show you how mediocrely average all of these guys are, nothing will. No wonder they’re all in the same financial ballpark.

Fun “hometown boy returns” angles for local papers!
Looper: Zero. Grew up in Oklahoma, went to Wichita State.
Wolf: Huge upside for Wolf here; we already lived through all the “he went to Pepperdine!” and “he grew up watching the Dodgers!” stories in 2007.
Garland: But a late contender in Garland, who’s from Southern Cal and apparently grew up a Dodger fan as well!
Advantage: Push, Wolf and Garland.

Verdict!
Well, Braden Looper didn’t win any of these categories, plus he’s the oldest and has the smallest track record. He’s out. Really, it comes down to the differences that Wolf and Garland can offer you. Wolf is probably the more talented pitcher, and if he’s healthy and on his game he’s a better option than Garland. But on the other hand, if these are the three guys you’re choosing from, you don’t need an ace. With the other questions in the rotation, you want a guy who you know can pick up innings. Between Billingsley’s leg and big innings increase, Kuroda’s shoulder, and Kershaw’s youth, there’s no one we can say will almost definitely give us 200 innings. Garland, by all accounts, can. They won’t be great innings, but league-average innings do carry value. So when one of those three hits the DL – and trust me, one will – I’d rather know we have a steady horse like Garland than a question mark like Wolf.

So, I guess I’m going to have to swallow hard and say, that assuming the money and length are about equal… I choose Jon Garland over Randy Wolf. Which of course means we’ll be welcoming Braden Looper to LA in a few days.

(Who are we kidding, though? Ben Sheets is still the only right answer. I know it sounds like that goes against what I just said in choosing the reliability of Garland over Wolf, but it’s not quite the same. Sheets is without question a more talented pitcher than Wolf and he’s more durable, as well. With how low his price has dropped, and how close this team is, it’s worth it to take a gamble on an ace-quality pitcher. Draft pick be damned.)

26 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

THE WAY THE PRICE IS DROPPING FOR THEM, WHY CAN’T WE JUST SIGN THEM BOTH? GARLAND FOR 5 MILL~ WOLF FOR UNDER 8.

Comment by DUSTO— January 24, 2009 #

Reply
You’ve got it right on the money, MSTI. Very good analysis. And IP from a starting pitcher may be valuable, like you said, when you consider the question marks and youth we will be relying on this year.

Comment by ceyheyjay— January 24, 2009 #

Reply
What’s the skinny on signing Kris Benson and having him be a major part of the rotation?
I’ve never been a fan of Jon Garland. We could get him for free and I wouldn’t feel comfortable letting him take the hill every fifth day. For the past three years (dating back to the last time he won 18 games with Chicago in 2006), his walk rate has steadily increased while his strikeouts have decreased into the double-digit range. I don’t care who you are, but every major league starting pitcher who throws 200+ innings SHOULD BE ABLE TO REACH AT LEAST 100 STRIKEOUTS IN A SEASON!! It’s going to be really painful to see the opposing pitchers get hits off him because his stuff sucks so badly. I’ll take Randy Wolf every time, please. If nothing else, I can start wearing my wolf costume to games again! :P

Comment by Digression— January 24, 2009 #

Reply
#1 Dusto: You can’t really sign two starting pitchers. That wouldn’t leave a spot for us to promote from within and build a base in the rotation for years to come. James McDonald will get a shot at the #5 and could be a great #3 for us in the future. We also have Scotty Elbert potentially being used as a starter and the recent conversion of Ramon Troncoso. Eric Stults is also there as well as the surprise ‘back from the dead’ conidate that the Dodgers get every other year. And you can’t forget about Jason Schmidt, as much as we’d all like to.

Comment by TheSleaze— January 24, 2009 #

Reply
2 – Jay, if we keep agreeing so much the world might just implode.
3 – Benson’s not going to be a big part of anything. He’ll sign cheap somewhere, but you can’t count on him at all.

Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— January 24, 2009 #

Reply
Garland has started 32 or 33 games seven straight seasons. He’s no “Ace”, but he has stayed healthy, and probably could benefit from pitching in the NL. Ben Sheets and Randy Wolf make no sense for the Dodgers. Ned Colletti has already taken a risk on Rafael Furcal. Can he really afford another injury prone player? Thankfully Sheets hasn’t been linked to the Dodgers, and hopefully Ned will stay away from Wolf. If Garland comes cheap, and short-term, then Ned should sign him.

Comment by Bluboy— January 24, 2009 #

Reply
You almost had me, Mike. There is no way you picked Judy. That is just to fool Neddie and the Brand, wasn’t it? They figure if you like the guy, it is time to go after Sheets. You are one sly dog, Mike.
The only upside to signing Judy is that he already have a disparaging nickname. After all, we are rid of the Hindenburg, so all we are left with is Slap and Pinball to abuse. God knows we need one more stiff to abuse, so I can see where Judy fits in.

Comment by grabarkewitz— January 24, 2009 #

Reply
I choose Garland too. I’ve always stood up for Garland when people said he was awful. He was pretty much a league average AL pitcher, so he should atleast be that in the NL, and possibly more considering how poor the NL West is. I wonder if those Bill James projections are league nuetral, I kind of doubt it. Garland’s projections are probably weighted on his AL numbers of the past. If that’s the case he could get the nod in that category too. The Dodgers need innings. And 200+ innings from a league average pitcher is very valuable to this pitching staff. The less 2009 innings we give to the likes of Stults, Schmidt, McDonald, Troncoso and Vargas etc…, the better. Not that any of those guys can’t do well, they just most likely wouldn’t as starters. And considering what happened to Schmidt, the Dodgers might be a little on the shy side about signing Wolf, even though he would make nowhere close to what Schmidt did. Also keep in mind a league average starting pitcher is worth 2 wins, and should be worth around $10Mil per year. If we can get Wolf or Garland at $5Mil per year, with no more than $10Mil per year with their incentives, that would be well worth it. Heck, sign both! :)
vr, Xei

Comment by Xeifrank— January 24, 2009 #

Reply
What makes people think Garland comes cheap exactly? He made the most out of the 3 of them last year at 12 million, Wolf got a 3 year 29.5 million dollar offer.
Why would Garland suddenly take a 2-year 10 million dollar deal or something? He’s gonna demand 3-4 years for like 8-12 million you’ve got to figure.
Ned is sorta right (shockingly) in taking the guy who’s willing to take the least from the Dodgers. If Wolf is willing to take a 1-year deal, it’s him. If Looper or Garland are willing to take 2-3 years at 6-8, it’s either of them.

Comment by kensai— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
Just going by what Gammons said, Kensai. With these guys being so similar and the market bottoming out, it wouldn’t totally surprise me that there’s no 3 year deals to be had and a guy like Garland would take a short deal in a favorable pitching situation to pump his value up for a better economy.
Besides, I see you just did the same post on your blog – and came up with Garland too!

Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
Brooke is beautiful!

Comment by heather— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
Can’t we just sign Anna Benson? At this point, I think she has a better arm than her husband.

Comment by grabarkewitz— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
I can’t believe that it has come to this – we are espousing the virtues of Garland ! Unfortunately, he does seem the pick of a bad bunch. I truthfully don’t see any reason to throw anything other than minimal $ at what is now passing for SPs in this market, so setting our sights low seems appropriate. Any expectation that the Dodgers can score a top of the rotation arm in this market would be like salivating for prime rib while choosing from Spam, Spam, and baked beans & Spam.

Comment by kennerbuggy— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
I say if we can’t get Ben Sheets, trust the 4th spot to Eric Stults and the 5th to James McDonald, Estes, or the corpse of Jason Schmidt. I just don’t see the sense of paying $15 mil for a 4.50 era guy when we can get near the same from guys we’ve got under contract for the minimum.

Comment by Mike Sharperson Lives!— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
I don’t think the Dodgers have been linked to Ben Sheets. And I dont think it’s gonna cost $15 milllion per for any one of those three pitchers.

Comment by Bluboy— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
Meh?
Brooke Shields EASILY wins that contest, Mike.

Comment by Shmolnick— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
You’d really trust a rotation that ends with a career minor leaguer and guys who haven’t seen the big leagues at all the past few years? At least we know (barring any injuries) what we’re going to get from these free agents, and while I’ve never liked Garland, he’s what we need from our back end. Durable, consistent, and at least one guy we can count on to surpass (or get close to) 200 innings. What other member of our current rotation can you say that about?

Comment by Vollhardt— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
Hey! I will have no knocking of Baked Beans and Spam….that is gourmet dining among my hillbilly relatives.

Comment by grabarkewitz— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
Now latest word has Garland out of our price range, and Wolfie in. I agree on Garland with the $ being the same. However, I don’t see paying appreciably more for any of Garland, Wolf & Looper. Latest word has Wolf not passing on the ‘stros 3-yr offer at $28.5m, but the ‘stros pulling it before he could accept. That does fit with talk of a rapidly constricting marketplace.

Comment by kennerbuggy— January 25, 2009 #

Reply
Read that last night from Tony Jackson. Would’ve preferred it coming from Gurnick. The guy may be a first class tool, but he is rarely wrong on acquisitions. Of course, that comes from being a permanent attachment to Colletti’s zipper.
I have to wonder what purpose Ed Wade had in letting Wolf take the abuse for “refusing” an offer that had the half life of a pound of bacon in front of a Tennite?

Comment by grabarkewitz— January 26, 2009 #

Reply
So, as soon as one of these arms are signed, how soon before Manny’s fate is determined?

Comment by Wes— January 26, 2009 #

Reply
Yeah, i’m guessing we got the idea from the same rumor source. You’re just quicker, you bastard. :o
I came up with Garland, as long as he’s the one taking a significant paycut. :o

Comment by kensai— January 26, 2009 #

Reply
Yeah, we do need somebody durable and consistent. That’s what everybody wants.
However, I don’t see the point in paying somebody tens of millions to be a fringe-average #4-#5 starter. That’s the kind of signing that handcuffs you in the future for actual useful players. :o
Then again, Ned would probably just blow that money anyway.

Comment by kensai— January 26, 2009 #

Reply
Bluboy, I meant $15 mil total, not per. Garland and Wolf probably won’t go for a 1 yr. deal- it’ll take at least two to get them. And we trusted two spots to non-major leaguers last year: Kuroda and Kershaw. Granted, they had solid bonafides, but I say take the gamble and save the money.
However, Kensai pretty much beats my argument with his ‘Then again, Ned would probably just blow that money anyway.’ Touche`.

Comment by Mike Shaperson Lives!— January 27, 2009 #

Reply
Sheets . . . End of story.

Comment by Hunteralan— January 28, 2009 #

Reply
[...] case, since he was a free agent, I can tell you exactly what I expected from him, since I wrote an entire post in January trying to decide which of the three remaining FA starters (Wolf, Jon Garland, Braden Looper) I [...]

Pingback by MSTI’s 2009 in Review: Starting Pitchers (10+ Starts) « Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness— November 5, 2009 #

Reply

Mike Scioscia's tragic illness