Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, November 19, 2007

White Sox send Garland to Angels for Cabrera

Insert witty quote here

SuperGrover Posted: November 19, 2007 at 06:28 PM | 213 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: angels, white sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: November 19, 2007 at 08:49 PM (#2620295)
First Erstad, now Cabrera. The Sox are trying to corner the market on Anaheim castoffs.


STL North.
   102. DCA Posted: November 19, 2007 at 08:49 PM (#2620296)
On the Angels perhaps, but am I wrong in thinking Garland would be the second best pitcher in Seattle's rotation?

Isn't that the definition of a generic fourth starter?

Zito - 197 / 98
Cain - 200 / 122
Lowry - 156 / 113
Lincecum - 146 / 111
Morris - 137 / 102


They didn't just miss ... Morris is gone *and* Zito's ERA didn't cut it.
   103. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 19, 2007 at 08:52 PM (#2620301)
If Kenny could somehow spin some kind of deal that involves Juan Uribe going to Tampa and Carl Crawford coming to the South Side of Chicago that could be a heck of a deal for Chicago. If this deal is the precursor to something like that, I think it'd look a LOT better. Although I can't imagine that Crawford's going to be cheap to acquire and Uribe sure as hell wouldn't be the centerpiece of that deal.

I don't think the Sox have the pitching the Rays would want to trade Crawford. But...if the Sox could get Crawford and then sign Torii Hunter, all of a sudden they look a lot better.

AJ
Konerko
Richar
Fields
Cabrera
Crawford
Hunter
Dye
Thome

That's a snazzy team.
   104. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 19, 2007 at 08:56 PM (#2620310)
That's a snazzy team.

...that would lose at lot of 11-8 games.
   105. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 19, 2007 at 08:57 PM (#2620313)
That's a snazzy team.

...that would lose at lot of 11-8 games.


But they'd be snazzy losing them. Style counts!
   106. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:01 PM (#2620320)
that would lose at lot of 11-8 games.


I don't know. An outfield with Crawford and Hunter would be awfully good defensively. Cabrera may not be Uribe with the glove but he's pretty good. I have no idea about Richar and I guess Fields isn't so hot. But I wouldn't be surprised if Kenny's thought process is - get really, really good defensively and rely on good defense to make our young pitchers look good.

Wasn't that sort of how a lot of people viewed (still view?) Garland's 2005 season? A fluky good season built on great defense.
   107. Harmon "Thread Killer" Microbrew Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:02 PM (#2620322)
They didn't just miss ... Morris is gone *and* Zito's ERA didn't cut it.


Ah.
   108. shoewizard Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:04 PM (#2620329)
His peripherals aren't degrading. His K-rate remains low. His walk rate remains very good. He gives up lots of homers, but that peripheral has actually improved in recent years.

His K rate was low to begin with and fell even lower....his walk rate, while still good, was higher than in the previous two years. Less K's, More walks. Do I need to post those numbers again? And a lucky year with HR/F last year. His periphs got better in 2005-2006, compared to his previous seasons. But now may be sliding back towards pre 2005 levels. There is nothing wrong with Garland. But I don't think he gets any better from here on in. Like I said, he either maintains, or gets worse. But not a problem for a team like LA with so much depth in the first place, and for a guy with just one year left on his deal. He'll probably have a nice season in LA, and cash in big time as a FA, and then REALLY hose some poor team giving him 5 years, 75 million.
   109. The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:15 PM (#2620353)
Angels' fans:

I know what the stats say (like UZR and Pinto's thing), but is the OC still a top-notch defender, or has he been slowing down with age?

Uribe's fun to watch out there- he's got a ridiculously strong throwing arm, and considering his rotund stature (for a SS), it's amazing that his range is quite good. However, his mental errors are incredibly annoying and he's a pain to watch while at the plate. I still think Richar is the starting second baseman going into '08, but if he falls on his face (which is very possible, I'm not totally sure he's a legit MLBer), Uribe is a decent replacement.

Wow, the Sox currently have Uribe, Richar, Pablo Ozuna, Alex Cintron, and Andy Gonzalez on the roster. That's a whole lotta super-subs.
   110. shoewizard Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:17 PM (#2620360)
Wow, the Sox currently have Uribe, Richar, Pablo Ozuna, Alex Cintron, and Andy Gonzalez on the roster. That's a whole lotta super-subs.

Define "super"
   111. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:27 PM (#2620378)
On the Angels perhaps, but am I wrong in thinking Garland would be the second best pitcher in Seattle's rotation?

Isn't that the definition of a generic fourth starter?

Nope. Starters, on the whole, have an ERA below league average (because relievers have higher ERAs). It the last few years it's usually a league-wide starter ERA+ of 96. Since all teams have 5-man rotations, that means a generic 3rd starter has an ERA+ of 96. I've looked it up (check Primate Studies) and a generic fourth starter has an ERA+ of 89. A generic fourth starter is Josh Fogg, not Jon Garland. Actually, Josh Fogg was finally better than an average fourth starter this year.

Admittedly, that ignores the role of defense and UER, but Garland's been far superior to Josh Fogg for a while now.

shoewizard - touche. Looking it up, I'll add this mark against Garland, he allowed about as many UER in 2007 (16) as he did in 2004, 2005, and 2006 combined (19).
   112. Shredder Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:29 PM (#2620384)
because relievers have higher ERAs
I think you mean "better" ERAs.
   113. VG Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:30 PM (#2620386)
I think you mean "better" ERAs.

Or he meant ERA+.
   114. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:40 PM (#2620403)
I know what the stats say (like UZR and Pinto's thing), but is the OC still a top-notch defender, or has he been slowing down with age?

He's good, solid, above-average. I don't think he really deserved the Gold Glove at this point. I think going from him to Izturis would definitely be a step down, but who knows -- Izturis is good at confounding expectations.
   115. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:42 PM (#2620410)
The Angels won their division and are trying to get BETTER. Did folks think they should sit on the 32 year old shortstop who had a career year and expect him to maintain this level of performance? That's wishful thinking. They saw an opportunity to exploit his perceived value and leveraged that to their advantage.

They wouldn't trade him unless they had an Option B lined up. Only GMs like Gabe Paul make a trade and then pause to say, "Hey, what do I do next?".

As for the White Sox, yes I agree that OC is an improvement offensively over Uribe. But Uribe is one h*llacious defender. Since Orlando's offense is only marginally better isn't this a wash in runs gained/lost? In which case the team has accomplished nothing other than letting a valuable commodity, a starter capable of 200 decent MLB innings, go out the door?

I don't understand the talent gain. I don't understand the financial gain. I don't understand this trade from the White Sox perspective.

And I don't like green eggs and ham.

(No, not getting senile yet. Just seemed like the way to finish this post)
   116. David Cameron Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:43 PM (#2620413)
A generic fourth starter is Josh Fogg, not Jon Garland. Actually, Josh Fogg was finally better than an average fourth starter this year.

Nope - this requires the assumption that all 30 teams are trying to compete equally in any given season and the distribution of pitching talent is something close to even. Neither of those is even remotely true.

If you're trying to win the World Series (and presumably, the Angels are), and Jon Garland is your 3rd best starting pitcher or better, you better some tremendous position players, the greatest bullpen of all time, or you're going to fail.

That Jon Garland is better than the entire Nationals rotation doesn't give us any kind of insight into his value to a contender. On any real contending team, he's a #4 or #5 starter and the guy that you're not sure you throw in a playoff series unless you have to. He's Paul Byrd on stilts.
   117. rfloh Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:45 PM (#2620416)
From THT,

Garland's peripherals, last 4 years, from 2004:

BB / G : 3.2, 2.0, 1.8, 2.5.

K / G : 4.8, 4.9, 4.8, 4.3.

xFIP: 5.15, 4.31, 4.82, 5.02.

Where is this degradation in his peripherals?
   118. salfino Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:45 PM (#2620417)
O. Cabrera always struck me as a guy who should hit for a higher average given his K/BB ratio. So, I buy the average (generally, not necessarily last years) and think his OBP projections are off by 20 or 30 points. Cabrera is more useful than most here are opining.
   119. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:47 PM (#2620418)
And I don't like green eggs and ham.

(No, not getting senile yet. Just seemed like the way to finish this post)


Harvey, we're a bad influence on you. You're getting snarky by using pop culture references. Pretty soon you're going to understand Repoz' intros!
   120. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:49 PM (#2620420)
In which case the team has accomplished nothing other than letting a valuable commodity, a starter capable of 200 decent MLB innings, go out the door?

I don't understand the talent gain. I don't understand the financial gain. I don't understand this trade from the White Sox perspective.


Precisely.
   121. xeifrank Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:51 PM (#2620423)
Izturis already projects to be a much better hitter than OCAB. OCAB has the better glove, so it's probably a wash this year. So basically, the Angels are getting one year of Garland by only giving up some depth at SS. There may be more deals to come, that make this conversation moot.

vr, Xei
   122. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:51 PM (#2620424)
Interesting that the Boston Red Sox steamrolled their way to a World Series win with a third starter of either Dice K or Curt Schilling and neither appears significantly better than Garland given the info available. Sure Dice WILL be better. But he wasn't THIS year.

And I'm guessing the Indians would have been pretty pleased to have Garland rarther than Byrd or Westbrook.

But on the ANGELS, Garland is a four. Because that is a pretty d*mn good staff.....
   123. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:52 PM (#2620425)
If you're trying to win the World Series (and presumably, the Angels are), and Jon Garland is your 3rd best starting pitcher or better, you better some tremendous position players, the greatest bullpen of all time, or you're going to fail.


Your general point is reasonable, but Garland seems like an odd example (I know - he's who this thread is about), given that he was the 3rd best starter on a World Series winning team two years ago that did so without any tremendous position players or a historically great bullpen.
   124. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:57 PM (#2620432)
Nope - this requires the assumption that all 30 teams are trying to compete equally in any given season and the distribution of pitching talent is something close to even. Neither of those is even remotely true.

If you're trying to win the World Series (and presumably, the Angels are), and Jon Garland is your 3rd best starting pitcher or better, you better some tremendous position players, the greatest bullpen of all time, or you're going to fail.

That Jon Garland is better than the entire Nationals rotation doesn't give us any kind of insight into his value to a contender. On any real contending team, he's a #4 or #5 starter and the guy that you're not sure you throw in a playoff series unless you have to. He's Paul Byrd on stilts.


There's a huge difference between "fourth starter on a contender" and "generic fourth starter." Garland will be the fourth starter in Anaheim, and if he's your #4, you're in pretty good shape.

Look at the #4 starters for the last few pennant winners. Garland is better than most of em.
   125. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:00 PM (#2620437)
And by Dice K or Curt I mean one was 2 and one was 3 by the end of the season. Take your pick based on preferences.

And certainly THIS season in the AL among the top six teams Garland is an easy number 3 on every staff save one and a borderline 2 based on innings/output.

Garland was in the top 40 in the AL of VORP including all pitchers. I think that puts him comfortably as a 3 as well. He was 29th in the AL in 2006. Do I need to continue?

I fail to understand how Garland doesn't have a fair amount of value. And that Williams didn't assess that value correctly.
   126. CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:08 PM (#2620446)
As for the White Sox, yes I agree that OC is an improvement offensively over Uribe. But Uribe is one h*llacious defender. Since Orlando's offense is only marginally better isn't this a wash in runs gained/lost? In which case the team has accomplished nothing other than letting a valuable commodity, a starter capable of 200 decent MLB innings, go out the door?

Marginally better, Harveys? Really? I don't think you're looking at the same stats I'm looking at. The past two seasons, OC's OBP is at right around .340. Over that same time, Uribe's is about .270. That doesn't qualify as a 'marginal' difference.

Also, why is 2007 considered a career year for Cabrera? His numbers weren't that much different than his 2006 season.

I read on here some folks pining for Tampa to get a superb glove at short. I assume Uribe would fit the bill, although probably not at $5 million. Would they do Uribe + $$$ + a prospect for Baldelli?
   127. David Cameron Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:09 PM (#2620448)
Interesting that the Boston Red Sox steamrolled their way to a World Series win with a third starter of either Dice K or Curt Schilling and neither appears significantly better than Garland given the info available.

The only way you can possibly believe that Garland = Schilling/Matsuzaka is if you believe that Garland's home run rate this year was something close to his true talent level. And, considering the remarkable inconsistency of year-to-year HR rates and Garland's BIP distribution, you have to take a pretty huge leap of faith to believe that his 2007 HR rate is his real HR rate.

Otherwise, Schilling and Matsuzaka blow Garland out of the water. The only reason you'd even think he's in the discussion is if his home run prevention was repeatable, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

And I'm guessing the Indians would have been pretty pleased to have Garland rarther than Byrd or Westbrook.

I'd guarantee you that they wouldn't swap Westbrook for Garland. No way, no how. Westbrook's just demonstrably better. And, as I said, Byrd and Garland are basically the same type of pitcher, so while they might swap one for the other, the difference is minor.

Your general point is reasonable, but Garland seems like an odd example (I know - he's who this thread is about), given that he was the 3rd best starter on a World Series winning team two years ago that did so without any tremendous position players or a historically great bullpen.

Two years ago, Jon Garland was better than he is now.

There's a huge difference between "fourth starter on a contender" and "generic fourth starter." Garland will be the fourth starter in Anaheim, and if he's your #4, you're in pretty good shape.

And if he's your #3, you're not. That seems like the definition of a fourth starter to me.

Look at the #4 starters for the last few pennant winners. Garland is better than most of em.

Look at the #3 starters for the last few pennant winners - Garland is worse than most of them, or they didn't win because of their starting rotation.

I fail to understand how Garland doesn't have a fair amount of value. And that Williams didn't assess that value correctly.

I care a lot less about a pitcher's track record, and a lot more about their abilities, than just about everyone here. Garland is a guy with a 90 MPH fastball, a slider that's not an outpitch, a blah change-up, and his entire attack is to throw the ball over the plate and hope the hitter gets themselves out. He's not a groundball pitcher, despite the multiple posters in this thread claiming that he is, and he doesn't have the kind of stuff to induce weak contact. That's not the recipe for any kind of good starting pitcher.

VORP, ERA+ - these are lousy ways to project what a pitcher is going to do going forward.
   128. The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:09 PM (#2620449)
As for the White Sox, yes I agree that OC is an improvement offensively over Uribe. But Uribe is one h*llacious defender. Since Orlando's offense is only marginally better isn't this a wash in runs gained/lost? In which case the team has accomplished nothing other than letting a valuable commodity, a starter capable of 200 decent MLB innings, go out the door?


I would say Uribe *was* a hellacious defender. In '05, he and Crede were possibly the best 3B-SS combo in baseball (defensively-speaking). Since then, he's taken steps backward- the aforementioned weight gain and a general lack of improvement in all aspects of the game. Now, I'm not saying he can't get back up to his 2005 level of play, but right now I'd say he's closer to Christian Guzman than Troy Tulowitzki.

I'd also say that the OC is more than a slight upgrade offensively. Uribe's power comes from hitting at the Cell (.315 SLG on the road last year), so that's a wash. In '07 Cabrera had a .345 OBP while Uribe was at .284. I'd say that's a pretty huge difference, considering the fact that nobody on the Sox got on base last year (outside of Thome and Konerko). And while the OC is 32, I don't expect him to fall off the earth hitting-wise.
   129. DL from MN Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:13 PM (#2620456)
"Look at the #4 starters for the last few pennant winners. Garland is better than most of em."

I think he _was_ one of them in 2005.
   130. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:15 PM (#2620462)
Well David, I don't disagree with the assessment of Garland's abilities but after a while the results overwhelm my personal prejudices.

What would you have me do? I feel rather silly insisting a guy is subpar when the results say otherwise.

And right now the Angels are swapping a year of Garland for a year of Cabrera. Considering who is on the wrong side of the year 30 I suspect if anyone is going to drive off the career cliff it's Orlando.
   131. Klutts! Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:18 PM (#2620466)
Tejada is the likely target here, since MCab presently or in the near term can't handle 3B. I think from the O's perspective it makes all sorts of sense to trade him now and get younger. The Angels with or without OCab or Garland would be clear favorites in the West, but as the ALDS showed they need at least another infield bat along with some good work by Morales and Kotchman. Santana, Wood and Arredondo for Tejada and a low level P prospect seems fair.

No more MAR-CO SCU-TA-RO! chants has me feeling the blues though.
   132. Shredder Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:19 PM (#2620468)
David, why do you insist upon evaluating this trade in a vacuum? I still fail to see how the Angels got "worse" by trading a guy they pretty much have an equivalent to (if not a better option) already AND adding a better than league average innings eater at very little financial cost. And that assumes this is not a precursor to a larger deal for a bat.

Sorry, but it sounds like wishful thinking from a Mariners fan (though I could arguably be accused of the same thing).
   133. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:19 PM (#2620469)
There's a huge difference between "fourth starter on a contender" and "generic fourth starter." Garland will be the fourth starter in Anaheim, and if he's your #4, you're in pretty good shape.

And if he's your #3, you're not. That seems like the definition of a fourth starter to me.

Look at the #4 starters for the last few pennant winners. Garland is better than most of em.

Look at the #3 starters for the last few pennant winners - Garland is worse than most of them, or they didn't win because of their starting rotation.


I must have missed a post or something, but why is Garland a #3? I have him behind Lackey, Escobar and Weaver.
   134. KDub's CellPiece (BLtDH) Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:20 PM (#2620470)
But Uribe is one h*llacious defender.

Let me join in and state that this was, but is no longer, a true statement. Whether it's mental failures or being out of shape (as the Sox would have you believe), Uribe has regressed defensively.

As for assessing Garland's value, the Sox improved a huge glaring hole in their offense and saved at least $3M in salary. They also believe (whether right or not) that they can fill this hole in the rotation with one of Gonzalez/Broadway/Floyd/Haeger. I think it's also worth pointing out that Garland was most likely leaving town anyways after this season.

While they may have overpaid (I think a lot of that depends upon the cash considerations), I think it's a reasonable deal.
   135. shoewizard Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:27 PM (#2620479)
From THT,

Garland's peripherals, last 4 years, from 2004:

BB / G : 3.2, 2.0, 1.8, 2.5.

K / G : 4.8, 4.9, 4.8, 4.3.

xFIP: 5.15, 4.31, 4.82, 5.02.

Where is this degradation in his peripherals?


Sigh.....that fact that you have to go back 4 years should provide you with the answer. Do you want to compare him to his career averages, or to 2005-2006 ?. Prior to 2005 he was one pitcher. In 2005-2006 he was a different guy. 2007 seems like a step back towards the pre 2005 version...but with even less K's

Maybe THIS will help illustrate what I am trying to say.

Please don't conveniently ignore this statement in post 108


There is nothing wrong with Garland. But I don't think he gets any better from here on in. Like I said, he either maintains, or gets worse.


Thats my story and I'm sticking to it...(until someone convinces me otherwise of course...which is a possibility I am open to)
   136. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:29 PM (#2620482)
Post 134:

I am keeping in mind how pitching APPEARS to be so valued in the current climate. Even with the Sox having options one would expect them to get MORE from a guy whose PERCEIVED value would have to be significant.

I struggle to think that ballclubs can look at Garland regularly taking his turn in the rotation, generating a net positive, being a contributor on a championship team and NOT assess that fairly high whatever his ACTUAL abilities may be.

Clubs are getting more sophisticated but not THAT sophisticated. It's still "what has he done?" type valuation.

Like the signing of Jarrod Washburn for example. (All in good fun M's fan)
   137. David Cameron Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:30 PM (#2620485)
Well David, I don't disagree with the assessment of Garland's abilities but after a while the results overwhelm my personal prejudices.

It's not at all unusual for results to be influenced by factors out of a pitcher's control - in this case, Garland's shoulder problems, decreased velocity, and drop in groundball and infield fly rates all point to a similar conclusion - his stuff simply isn't as good as it once was. Take a look at his Pitch F/X card - it's not like his stuff gives us hope that he should be blowing hitters away with this kind of arsenal.

Jon Garland has regressed in ability, even if his ERA based results don't necessarily reflect that yet. They will. (Hint - Check out his 16 unearned runs for 2007. He had 19 unearned runs in 2004-2006 combined.)

And right now the Angels are swapping a year of Garland for a year of Cabrera. Considering who is on the wrong side of the year 30 I suspect if anyone is going to drive off the career cliff it's Orlando.

Cabrera was something like 20 runs better than Juan Uribe last year, and his skillset shows almost no degradation in ability. We should expect that the difference between the two for 2008 is going to be somewhere in that 10-20 run range as well. That improvement is drawing yawns from most everyone here.

Now, if we believe that Garland is something like a 4.75 ERA true talent guy for 2008 (I do), then for Garland to be 10 runs better than whoever he's replacing, that guy would have to be a 5.22 true talent guy. For him to be 20 runs better, he'd have to be a 5.67 true talent guy. I'm just guessing, but I bet the Angels could have gotten a better than 5.67 true talent #4 starter without trading away Orlando Cabrera.
   138. bhoov Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:34 PM (#2620487)
Joining the chorus concerning Uribe's D: Uribe has lost a step as his girth has continued to increase. Fan's ratings, UZR and PMR all concur with that. Both PMR (Uribe -8, Cabrera +4) and UZR (Cabrera +6, Uribe something less than that) have Cabrera as the better fielder this past year. B pro has Cabrera at 0 BRAA and Uribe at -23. The total win difference is probably 2 wins even accounting for age related decline from O-cab. This is a pretty big improvement.
   139. shoewizard Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:34 PM (#2620491)
FWIW,

Garland 75 PRC in 2007, Cabrera 93 RC

Garland PRC since 2004

04-78
05-98
06-82
07-75
   140. David Cameron Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:35 PM (#2620493)
David, why do you insist upon evaluating this trade in a vacuum?

Because the other shoe hasn't fallen yet? If and when they steal a good shortstop from someone else, or find a way to use this trade to turn Ervin Santana into Miguel Cabrera, I'll congratulate them on a job well done. Until then, they just made their playoff roster weaker. But you obviously think far more highly of Maicer Izturis than I do.
   141. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:39 PM (#2620495)
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Cabrera's history of back problems until now. As much talk as there has been about Garland's shoulder, I think Cabrera might actually be the worse bet from a health standpoint.
   142. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:40 PM (#2620496)
I should have checked on Uribe's defense. My personal viewing of the Sox was limited this season.

I confess I find the team boring. Even with Ozzie's presence.
   143. rfloh Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:42 PM (#2620500)
#135

Looking at more peripherals than just K / BB, xFIP, 2005 was way out of line with the rest of his career. In 2006, he was better, but that difference isn't large. I'm not arguing that he is going to repeat 2005.

Also, he was a ~100 ERA+ pitcher 4 years ago. He was a ~100 ERA+ this year. His peripherals now resemble those from 4 years ago.

There is nothing wrong with Garland. But I don't think he gets any better from here on in. Like I said, he either maintains, or gets worse.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it...(until someone convinces me otherwise of course...which is a possibility I am open to)


Who's claiming that he is going to get better?
   144. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:45 PM (#2620502)
Because the other shoe hasn't fallen yet? If and when they steal a good shortstop from someone else, or find a way to use this trade to turn Ervin Santana into Miguel Cabrera, I'll congratulate them on a job well done. Until then, they just made their playoff roster weaker. But you obviously think far more highly of Maicer Izturis than I do.

The roster already looks stronger to me. Izturis has been a league average hitter in ~700 ABs over the last couple years, so even if nothing else happens I doubt they'd lose much by starting him in place of Cabrera. And replacing Santana with Garland is almost certainly a big upgrade. (plus, they potentially strengthen the bullpen by moving Santana there).
   145. xeifrank Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:48 PM (#2620505)
Go compare the Zips projections of OCAB and M.Izturis.
vr, Xei
   146. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:48 PM (#2620506)
They also believe (whether right or not) that they can fill this hole in the rotation with one of Gonzalez/Broadway/Floyd/Haeger.

You're leaving out Egbert and Phillips.

Sure the White Sox fill one hole and open another one. But they have zero prospect options at 2B/SS and several prospect options at SP. It's almost the opposite for the Angels. Seems like a prudent trade for both teams, both teams know the talent edge goes to the Angels, thus the cash considerations.
   147. asinwreck Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:51 PM (#2620511)
Given that the Sox were going to get rid of Garland one way or another this offseason for financial reasons, I'm not outraged by the trade. My chief concern is, like Mackowiak two seasons ago, Cabrera is given an assignment he is not equipped to perform. Mackowiak flailed around in centerfield when Guillen decided Brian Anderson should not be in the lineup. Cabrera's speed could tempt Guillen to bat him leadoff despite his OBP. (Although even that's justifiable considering how bad the non-Thome hitters in the Sox lineup were about getting on base last year.)

If Cabrera hits below #1, he will be a competent offensive player. That's a massive upgrade from Uribe's 2007, and reminiscent of Kenny Williams's plan going into 2005. Then, he unloaded high-salaried veterans (Lee, Ordonez) and used the savings to upgrade 2B and C (Iguchi, Pierzynski) from dismal to competent, leaving no black holes in the lineup. That worked out well, maybe it will again. I don't know if the Sox are willing to sign him long-term, but the draft picks they would get for losing him are an upgrade over what they would have gotten for letting Garland walk after this season. If they had any intention of paying Garland, which they didn't.

What's going to be interesting is seeing who the Angels decide to play at short. They don't lack for candidates.

Good for Jon Garland. He gets to go home, play for a team favored to make the playoffs, and play for a more vital offense than he had in 2007. Thanks for what you did to bring the championship to Chicago, Jon, and good luck out west.
   148. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:55 PM (#2620515)
K / BB, xFIP

Does xFIP include GB%? If not, it's probably not all that useful.
   149. shoewizard Posted: November 19, 2007 at 11:01 PM (#2620519)
Who's claiming that he is going to get better?

Nobody....but some people are latching on to the phrase "degradation of the peripherals" comment and heading into the wrong debate. Compared to the previous two seasons, his periphs, or walks and K's, DID degrade. His HR rate was better than in previous years, but that seems lucky to me. His GB rate got worse than the previous two seasons as well.

I simply envision a hill with a rounded hump. 2005-2006 seems like the top of hill to me. Maybe he is a "double hump camel" ..I don't know for sure. But the smart money is on him getting no better than he is now....and a hint of that can be gleaned from his K/B ratio and GB rate. It's not eye popping undeniable decline....but then by the time it is....EVERYONE has "figured it out".

Anyway.....he's on my "Do not draft" list for Roto.
   150. rfloh Posted: November 19, 2007 at 11:06 PM (#2620532)

Does xFIP include GB%? If not, it's probably not all that useful.


"Expected Fielding Independent Pitching. This is an experimental stat that adjusts FIP and "normalizes" the home run component. Research has shown that home runs allowed are pretty much a function of flyballs allowed and home park, so xFIP is based on the average number of home runs allowed per outfield fly. Theoretically, this should be a better predicter of a pitcher's future ERA."
   151. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 19, 2007 at 11:15 PM (#2620542)
150 - Thanks.
   152. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: November 19, 2007 at 11:42 PM (#2620564)
I think this is a good trade for both teams. As has been pointed out, the upgrade from Uribe to Cabrera is huge. Adding 70 points of OBP is awesome whether it's from 270-->340 or 350-->420

If the Sox can continue to upgrade their defense and fill the gaps in the outfield, I think their pitching staff will be fine with their young prospects.
   153. JThompson Posted: November 19, 2007 at 11:44 PM (#2620567)
Not sure why anyone following the Angels didn't see the Angels dealing OC. As others have pointed out, at age 33 with a career year behind him and only one year left on his contract - and with the Angels have three players who need to play and who could all be the regular SS by YE 2008 - it was the smart move to make.

Counting Santana and Saunders, the Angels suddenly have some SP depth, with some pitchers who are under club control for three or more years. The thinking that LAA doesn't have another move in mind - involving an SP and likely soon - is pretty myopic.

Sure, Garland's peripherals suggest he could blow up at any time, but the results - particularly in a hitter's paradise like the Cell - are difficult to argue with. The Angels were smart to get him now. He's a SoCal boy who will likely give the SoCal team a hometown discount, if they like what they see from each other. Given the money these guys are making, location / geography are actually beginning to count for something.
   154. Shredder Posted: November 19, 2007 at 11:50 PM (#2620575)
Not sure why anyone following the Angels didn't see the Angels dealing OC.
I can't speak for the others, but for me, it wasn't so much that I couldn't see them dealing him. It was that I couldn't see anyone else offering enough in return to make it worth their while.
   155. JThompson Posted: November 19, 2007 at 11:57 PM (#2620583)
I can't speak for the others, but for me, it wasn't so much that I couldn't see them dealing him. It was that I couldn't see anyone else offering enough in return to make it worth their while.


I actually thought that if the Angels were smart, they'd deal OC for pitching, given their lack of SP depth. But I was thinking that a team like TAM - who has all kinds of talent but needs defense and veterans to help them take the next step up - would have been a logical match-up. I was hoping the Angels could pick off one of TAM's coveted minor league pitching prospects, but that was probably silly of me...
   156. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 20, 2007 at 12:11 AM (#2620598)
If you're trying to win the World Series (and presumably, the Angels are), and Jon Garland is your 3rd best starting pitcher or better, you better some tremendous position players, the greatest bullpen of all time, or you're going to fail.

Well, good thing Garland isn't one of the Angels' top three starters, then.

VORP, ERA+ - these are lousy ways to project what a pitcher is going to do going forward.

Of course, Garland has been confounding his peripherals for years. 2006 was the only year that his ERA beat his FIP, and it's never beaten his "xFIP".

He's not a groundball pitcher, despite the multiple posters in this thread claiming that he is

Well, he was 19th amongst 80 qualifiers last year in GB%, though his GB/FB ratio was 55th. The year before he was 56th of 84 in GB%, 54th in GB/FB. 2005: 35th of 93 in GB%, 29th in GB/FB. He does lean more toward groundballs than not, though he is not extreme.

Cabrera was something like 20 runs better than Juan Uribe last year, and his skillset shows almost no degradation in ability. We should expect that the difference between the two for 2008 is going to be somewhere in that 10-20 run range as well. That improvement is drawing yawns from most everyone here.

Now, if we believe that Garland is something like a 4.75 ERA true talent guy for 2008 (I do), then for Garland to be 10 runs better than whoever he's replacing, that guy would have to be a 5.22 true talent guy. For him to be 20 runs better, he'd have to be a 5.67 true talent guy. I'm just guessing, but I bet the Angels could have gotten a better than 5.67 true talent #4 starter without trading away Orlando Cabrera.


Except the dropoff from Cabrera to Izturis probably isn't 10 runs. Maybe it is; I don't know. Going off of BB-Ref's linear weights runs, Cabrera has been -11 runs per 600 PA the last four years offensively. He's getting older, so his projection for 2008 is probably around -12; he gets around 3-5 runs of that back on defense, I'd guess, so he's around -9 or -8 or so.

Izturis has been -8 runs per 600 PA. He's going to be 27 next year, and has been above league average the last couple of years, so I'd be surprised if his projection was worse than -5. But there are two questions: could he do that as an everyday player, and can his glove carry shortstop? I don't know the answers to those questions.

Looking at Garland ... he's been +38 earned runs better than average the last four years, so close to +10 per year. Of course, it's been pointed out that he allowed less HR last year ... if you give him his '05 and '06 HR rate in '07, and charge him 1.4 runs per each new HR, he comes out to roughly +3 runs above average instead of +12, and his total over the past four years would have been +29, so he'd be around +7 per year.

Is there a reason to expect him to fall short of +7 this year? There may be; his unearned runs last year may be a concern. The +3 already accounts for his poorer K and BB rates in 2007. Maybe he'll be league average.

Joe Saunders strikes out more guys than Garland (15% to 12%), walks more (8% to ~6%), and gives up less HR (2.5% to 3%). He's been -3 earned runs against average so far in his career, so he's probably a good bet to be around league average. Ervin Santana strikes out more guys than either of them (17%), walks around as many as Saunders (8%), and gives up the same HR as Saunders (3%). He's been -6 in earned runs in his career, so he's also probably a good bet for league average.

Assuming no further moves are made, if Izturis can maintain his performance as a regular while playing reasonable defense and if Garland is really a ~+7 guy while whichever of the young guys he replaces would have been average, the Angels might come out a win ahead here (three runs from SS and 7 from the SP). Those are some "ifs", though, and I don't really know what to think.
   157. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 20, 2007 at 12:22 AM (#2620608)
Not sure why anyone following the Angels didn't see the Angels dealing OC.

It's not that I didn't think it would make sense -- his value will likely never be higher. It's just that I didn't expect the team to do that, given how risk-averse they've been in the last seven years (which has usually been to the team's betterment).
   158. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 20, 2007 at 12:45 AM (#2620613)
If you're trying to win the World Series (and presumably, the Angels are), and Jon Garland is your 3rd best starting pitcher or better, you better some tremendous position players, the greatest bullpen of all time, or you're going to fail.

As others have noted, that's a bit different from calling him a generic fourth starter as you initially did.

On contending teams . . . others have already gone over the Red Sox. The Rockies went to September with exactly two starters with an ERA+ over 100 and over 160 IP. Garland's had three straight years over 200 IP and an ERA+ of 105. Their third starter was Josh Fogg.

Cleveland's third starter was either Paul Byrd or Jake Westbrook. Garland has a huge IP edge on Westbrook and he has similar peripherals to Paul Byrd.

Arizona - again, two pitchers clearly better. Neither Garland nor Owings strikes out many men, though Owings strikes out more than Garland. Then again, Garland threw over 50 more innings than Owings.

Philly had one pitcher throw more than 125 IP with an above average ERA+. Garland's been no worse than average for six straight years with 190+ IP a year.

The Yankees only had 3 men throw 100 innings. One of them sucked. Garland's no worse than third there.

He's a fourth starter on Anaheim.

On the Cubs, he'd be behind Zambrano, Lilly, and Hill. So yeah, there he's a fourth starter.

Even among teams making the playoffs last year, Garland is usually good enough to be a third starter. He's nothing splashy, but he's not bad and he's durable. Very few teams - very few contending teams - could use a guy like that in the middle of their rotations.
   159. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 20, 2007 at 12:55 AM (#2620617)
Very few teams - very few contending teams - could use a guy like that in the middle of their rotations.

Couldn't, I assume.
   160. 1k5v3L Posted: November 20, 2007 at 12:56 AM (#2620618)
Rosenthal rains on the Angels parade: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7466954

The Angels no longer are the front-runners for Miguel Cabrera.

The Dodgers stand a better chance of acquiring Cabrera from the Marlins, major-league sources say, if they are willing to part with outfielder Matt Kemp along with third baseman Andy LaRoche and Class AA left-hander Clayton Kershaw.


Do it, Ned.
   161. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:01 AM (#2620621)
As a few others have pointed out, this lines them up for Miggy Tejada.

If the Dodgers were smart (jury's still out), they'll wait for the Angels to move. If they're the only serious player left for Cabrera, then they'll have some leverage to work with.
   162. Rough Carrigan Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:04 AM (#2620623)
Does there have to be a winner in this trade?
Can't both sides be losers? That seems as likely as any other result here.
   163. Shredder Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:08 AM (#2620625)
Rosenthal rains on the Angels parade: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7466954
Who cares? Wrong Miguel. Or did nobody notice that the Angels just traded a shortstop?
   164. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:09 AM (#2620626)
waterloo ..
how come I can't get the RSS to work on your blog.
   165. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:18 AM (#2620629)
Hmm, dunno Gambling Rent. What reader do you use? I actually subscribe to it on Google Reader and it's usually fine.
   166. _ Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:21 AM (#2620631)
Insert witty quote here

The All-Christmas Team
C- Steve Christmas
Duane Josephson
1B- Bill Calhoun
J.T. Snow
2B- Pepe Frias
3B- Mike Ivie
SS- Ivan DeJesus
OF- Jesus Alou
OF- Rob Deer
OF- Babe Ruth
OF- Rickey Henderson
P- Wayne Garland
P- Jon Garland
P- Jeff Holly
P- Rick Wise
P- Dave Frost
Mgr- Bill Killefer
   167. bibigon Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:23 AM (#2620632)
Like everything else, this comes down to how much you believe in DIPS/FIP/etc...

If you view Garland as simply a 27 year old pitcher who has averaged 215 innings, and projects to 112 ERA+ or so, then this is a very good deal for the Angels.

If you think there is something to DIPS for Garland, then he projects to give you 215 pretty mediocre innings however - below a 100 ERA+ - then it's a lot closer.
   168. J. Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:23 AM (#2620633)
If they were going to trade Garland, couldn't they have moved him to the National League? He's a Blue Jay killer. Dammit.
   169. James Darnell's #1 Fan Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:24 AM (#2620634)
So, is this the start of the Wood Era?
Sure hope so.


Are you an A's fan?


Well, after the Padres you can say so.
But I also hope to see this guy hit in the Majors like he hit 2 years ago in the Minors.
I just love seeing the "prospects" play and see how they do with Major League pitching.
I would also love to see what Headley and Antonelli can do for the Padres next season.
   170. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:26 AM (#2620635)
hmm, maybe thats why it keeps sending me to google.

i use WIZZ and sage for readers. mainly wizz.

no stresses, I just wanted to add it because you don't come across many good/active Angel blogs other than Halos Heaven.

no stresses
   171. _ Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:26 AM (#2620636)
How often would he face the Jays? Twice at most. He could face them that often in the NL.
   172. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:30 AM (#2620640)
I would also love to see what Headley and Antonelli can do for the Padres next season


Towers really wants to hand the 2B job to Antonelli next year.
Not everybody in the organization agrees, so it should be interesting.
I wouldn't mind bringing in a vet to compete with him for a year.
   173. James Darnell's #1 Fan Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:43 AM (#2620654)
They probably will, they did it with Greene (they brought in Rey Ordoñez).
   174. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:44 AM (#2620656)
Gambling Rent, I must confess that I have no idea how the whole RSS thing works. All I know is that I sign in to Google Reader, type in the URL of some blog, and then I can read it through Google Reader. To me, it's just magic; I don't know how other readers work, or if I'm supposed to do anything on my ened.
   175. Walt Davis Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:23 AM (#2620710)
Starters, on the whole, have an ERA below league average (because relievers have higher ERAs). It the last few years it's usually a league-wide starter ERA+ of 96. Since all teams have 5-man rotations, that means a generic 3rd starter has an ERA+ of 96.

Aargh!

This would be all well and good if teams actually had 5-man rotations. But as people seem to forget again and again and again, those 5 men almost never stay healthy. Most teams end up giving 30+ starts to their 6th-8th starters ... and it's these guys who stink, stink, stink and pull those "average starter" numbers and especially the "4th starter" numbers down.

So on the one hand, this makes Garland much closer to the "generic" 4th starter (though in ERA+ terms he's almost certainly no worse than a #3) in terms of what teams intend their 5-man rotation to be. On the other hand, 2 months into the season, as other posts have essentially shown, Garland is generally a #3 starter even on the best staffs. Why? Because he keeps on pitching.

David and I have already had this discussion (Lohse) but, yes, Garland's greatest talent is an ability to throw 200 innings and not suck. That happens to be an extremely valuable talent, at least these days and probably always. The only question is can he keep it up. We know that eventually he's either going to be no longer durable or will start to suck (or both!). That could be 2008. But there's no particular reason to think that it will be and since he's only under contract for 2008, that's all that should matter to the Angels.

So chances are that, by the end of the year, Garland will have been the Angels #3 (or better) starter. This won't be because his peripherals improved or he got hit or HR lucky, it will be because he threw 200 IP and at least one of Weaver/Lackey/Escobar threw only about 100. And chances are the Angels will have given 30+ starts to a bunch of pitchers with a collective ERA+ of about 75. And if you're thinking that can't happen and/or the Angels can't make the playoffs if it does, please note the 45 starts they gave to pitchers with an ERA+ under 80 last year.

All of which means that:

I'm just guessing, but I bet the Angels could have gotten a better than 5.67 true talent #4 starter without trading away Orlando Cabrera.

is a statement with no basis in reality and completely ignores issues of durability. Also that this statement:

Joe Saunders strikes out more guys than Garland (15% to 12%), walks more (8% to ~6%), and gives up less HR (2.5% to 3%). He's been -3 earned runs against average so far in his career, so he's probably a good bet to be around league average. Ervin Santana strikes out more guys than either of them (17%), walks around as many as Saunders (8%), and gives up the same HR as Saunders (3%). He's been -6 in earned runs in his career, so he's also probably a good bet for league average.

seems to have completely forgotten to take durability into account as well. Granted, I don't think anyone has a good IP projection system, so I'm not suggesting this would be easy but to just blithely equate Garland with any schmuck who projects an averageish ERA is, sorry, dumb.

True, pitching isn't 75% of baseball ... but healthy pitching is! :-)
   176. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:31 AM (#2620715)
Walt, I don't think it's dumb to compare Garland to two guys who are around league average, especially when I was saying that Garland should be at least that good. Of course, Ervin Santana has been pretty damn durable himself, and Saunders has been the last couple of years, as well.

I also don't think that either Santana (even given his complete collapse last year) or Saunders are "any schmucks", but you've already established that I'm dumb, so I'm probably wrong about that.
   177. Shredder Posted: November 20, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2620747)
no stresses, I just wanted to add it because you don't come across many good/active Angel blogs other than Halos Heaven.
Ouch. That hurts.
   178. Gaelan Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:36 AM (#2620834)
I think this is a good deal for the White Sox. It comes down to certainty. Cabrera is a certain upgrade over Uribe and given the paucity of league average shortstops an upgrade that would be otherwise impossible for them to make.

Garland, on the other hand, while he has a track record of being an above average starter is no certainty. Guys like Garland are walking a fine line between the majors and the minors. If he doesn't start sucking next year it's going to happen soon. I also don't see how he represents an upgrade for the Angels. The only way it makes sense is if they have to trade their young pitching for Tejada. That would be a another bad deal since Tejada is almost cooked.
   179. KDub's CellPiece (BLtDH) Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:15 AM (#2620881)
Guys like Garland are walking a fine line between the majors and the minors.

This is a truly preposterous thing to say...especially about a pitcher that is 28 and had 6 consecutive seasons in which he's thrown more than 190 major league innings.
   180. 1k5v3L Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:38 AM (#2620899)
Smooth jazz with Kenny W G continues:

From rotoworld

Sources both in the White Sox organization and Torii Hunter's camp have told the Chicago Sun-Times that the two sides could agree to a contract within the week.

It's the type of addition that would put the White Sox back into the mix in the AL Central next year, but it'd also be a long-term deal for a player about to turn 33. Orlando Cabrera is 33, Jermaine Dye turns 34 in January, Paul Konerko turns 32 in March and Jim Thome is 37, giving the White Sox an old offensive nucleus. Nov. 19 - 11:15 pm et
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
   181. Gaelan Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:39 AM (#2620901)
This is a truly preposterous thing to say...especially about a pitcher that is 28 and had 6 consecutive seasons in which he's thrown more than 190 major league innings.


Oh? Take a look at Garland's comparables at the same age at baseball reference.

Richard Dotson: one more good year
Storm Davis: no more good years
Javier Vazquez: still pitching one above average year after age 27 so far (and a horrible comparison for Garland anyway)
Livan Hernandez: three more good years
Steve Avery: Done
Frank Viola: lots more good years and not really comparable
Alex Fernandez: one more good year

The rest of the comparable aren't really comparable.

The fact of the matter is that most pitchers never have six good seasons their entire career and those that do are much, much better than Garland. In fact I would bet that there isn't a simply player who has been as consistently, slightly above average as Garland who pitched well into their thirties. Average pitchers don't age well.

The fact that Garland is 28 is not a point in his favour. It is hitters that peak at 27 or 28 not pitchers. I'll take the under on a 100 ERA+.
   182. Shredder Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:53 AM (#2620912)
Shorter Gaelen: Let's look at his comp list, but ignore the guys who who kept pitching well by calling them not comparable!

Sorry, I don't mean to pick you on, but it just seems funny when you throw out the comp list thing, and immediately dismiss all the good pitchers on his list as incomparable. But while we're at it:
Richard Dotson - big injury at age 26, so he's not really comparable either
Livan Hernandez - I'm not sure anyone is comparable, but his best years came after age 28
Storm Davis - I'm assuming an injury at age 25 that dramatically decreased his innings pitched.
Steve Avery - Injuries at age 27. Never the same again.

So what do at least three of those guys have in common that they don't have in common with Garland, then tell me why they're more comparable than the good guys that aren't comparable.

You can't have it both ways. Either none of them are comparable, or all of them are, or similarity scores are inherently dumb ways to compare guys (I vote for the latter).
   183. CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo Posted: November 20, 2007 at 06:02 AM (#2620921)
Smooth jazz with Kenny W G continues:

From rotoworld


I've given up hoping for the Sox to 'go young'. It ain't gonna happen. They're young in some spots -- Josh Fields and Danny Richar will be starting infielders next season and their pitching staff is going to get drastically younger starting this season with Floyd or Gonzalez or Egbert and continuing with Fautino DLS.

But man -- Rotoworld correctly points out that the offensive core is old. Thome, Konerko, Dye, Cabrera, Pierzynski and potentially Hunter -- what's the average age there, 34? It will certainly make for an interesting 2008. That's not to say they should be favorites heading into next year, but if they get Hunter and add one more decent upgrade to LF, they'll have a quality lineup. The pitching, on the other hand, could be disaster with a back three of Contreras, Danks and (probably) Floyd.
   184. Gaelan Posted: November 20, 2007 at 06:06 AM (#2620923)
My point was the fact that Garland has a track record of success is not indicative of future success. I'd still like to hear of a historical example of a player like Garland who continued to have success through his late twenties into his thirties.
   185. Shredder Posted: November 20, 2007 at 06:13 AM (#2620929)
My point was the fact that Garland has a track record of success is not indicative of future success.
Nor, apparently, is indicative of future failure, as that list would seem to indicate.
   186. stealfirstbase Posted: November 20, 2007 at 06:26 AM (#2620941)
My point was the fact that Garland has a track record of success is not indicative of future success.

Jeez, who would you rather have? Ervin Santana strikes guys out and is durable, but sucks. I'll take Garland, thank you very much. If a track record of health and success isn't indicative of future health and success, what is?
   187. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 20, 2007 at 06:38 AM (#2620945)
You can find better comparables on your own via PI.

His main features are that: 1) he's durable, 2) he doesn't strike out anyone, 3) he doesn't walk many.

OK, go to PI and look for pitchers who tossed between 1100 and 1300 IP from ages 22-27 (Garland tossed 1242 in those years) with a W rate under 3.0/9IP (Garland at 2.74) and a K-rate under 5.25 (Garland at 5.21 - since the K-rate is so much higher nowadays, I wanted to put him at the uppermost extreme.

He's one of only 12 pitchers to meet those criteria in the liveball era.

Looking at the comps (sorted by IP pitched in those years):

Bill Gullickson's a good one. Even gave up plenty of homers. He wasn't as good as Garland (actually has the most similar ERA+, but Gullickson's was front-loaded in his first years with good seasons. Garland had better years later), but at age 28 he had a lousy year and then missed the entire campaigns for the two subsequent years. Then he went back to being Bill Gullickson.

Ross Grimsley: Also had trouble with the longball. Had the best year of his career at age 28, then receded.

Milt Pappas. Not as good a comp. His K-rate was better, espeically when compared to the league. Plus he spent more time pitching before age 22. Also gave up his share of homers, though. Good year at age 28, then despite some ebbs and flows remained a good pitcher through age 33.

Larry Sorenson. WOuld be a very good comp except his age 26 season is far worse than anything Garland did. With homers, he ranged from 3 HRA to 30 in a year. OK, weird split. Age 28 he collapsed, but again, he had already collapsed at age 26.

Tommy JOhn. Interesting one. A better K-pitcher relative to the league than Garland, but also a worse control pitcher. Not as substantial homer problems. Here's the most interesting part: like Garland, his peripherals got noticably worse prior to turning 28. His walks skyrocketed, and while his raw K-totals increased, that was entirely a funciton of IP. He struck out far fewer batters. And, like Garland, at age 27 he had a huge number of UER while pitching for the Chicago White Sox. At age 28, his control returned, but he allowed a bunch more hits off balls in play, causing his ERA to get worse. His BABIP cleared up and his control stayed good. He pitched nearly 20 years more. However, please note, his ERA+ from ages 22-27 was 120, far better than Garland's.

Stan Bahnsen. Made the list despite not pitching at all at age 22. Racked up bigger IP when pitching, but wasn't as good in general. After winning 20 with an ERA+ of 88 at age 27, he lost 20 with an ERA+ of 112 at age 28. At age 28, his peripherals COLLAPSED, though. It was his last hurrah.

Sidney Ponson. Heading into age 28, his walks were on the upswing, and K's on downswing. He was similar to Garland, but with slightly worse ERA+s. His age 27 was much worse than Garland, but not then again Garland has the huge number of unearned runs making him look better than he was. Really, he might be the closest comp yet. He sucked at age 28 and wasn't any good again.

Jack Fisher. Lousy comp. He tossed fewer innings in an era when starters tossed more than they do now. His best single-season ERA+ from those ages was 99. Garland's been worse than that only once. Fisher had years of 70, 72, 84, and 89. He sucked at age 28. But he's the worst comp here.

Steve Rogers. Another lousy comp. Came up midway through his age 23 season and tossed over 300 IP at age 27. Much better than Garland. Much better strikeout pitcher and he didn't allow as many homers. Very good at age 28. That's as meaningful as Fisher's terrible 28 season. Pass.

Jack Russell. Ladies and gents, the only pre-1960 pitcher on the list. At age 27, became a relief pitcher. Well that automatically makes him the worst comp here so far. Made the All-Star team (weird) at age 28, but as a reliever.

John Candelaria. Looks like he solved his early-career homer problems by age 27, but was injured that year. Pitched effectively for a while.

A mixed bag, but given Garland's effectiveness and durability overall so far, I'd cautiously expect him to be an average innings eater this year. The Ponson comparison scares me a bit, though.
   188. Shredder Posted: November 20, 2007 at 07:09 AM (#2620962)
The Ponson comparison scares me a bit, though.
I'll only worry about that if the Angels trade for Miguel Cabrera and he teaches Garland how to eat like Ponson.
   189. stealfirstbase Posted: November 20, 2007 at 07:23 AM (#2620964)
I'll only worry about that if the Angels trade for Miguel Cabrera and he teaches Garland how to eat like Ponson.

Plus, Garland hasn't lost any "stuff," and peripherals haven't declined like Ponson's.

Garland's going to be better than OK in 2008, getting out of the cell and getting a really good defense behind him. He'll probably be just fine in 2009-2010. After that, decline in stuff may catch up to him and send him to the NL in a pitchers park for good.
   190. Shredder Posted: November 20, 2007 at 07:37 AM (#2620968)
I'd agree 100% if I thought he'd have a really good defense behind him. So far I see one really good defender, and he's at first base. Everyone else is going to be slightly above average (Kendrick, maybe Willits if he gets time in left), average (whoever plays short, third, and Matthews, and maybe Anderson in left), or below average.
   191. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 20, 2007 at 08:30 AM (#2620981)
If they were going to trade for O-Cab, why would you re-sign Uribe? that doesn't make sense.
   192. Walt Davis Posted: November 20, 2007 at 08:52 AM (#2620985)
How does Jeff Suppan not make that list? I suspect putting Garland at the top of your K cutoff (defensible as you point out) causes you to miss a lot of pretty comparable guys.

But yes, this could be the year Garland tanks. This could also be the year Cabrera's BA returns to 250.

I'd never recommend signing a guy like Garland long-term if you can avoid it (I'm pretty sure I mocked that signing when it happened though my appreciation of BIP pitchers continues to grow). But there's no reason to expect the blow-up to be 2008.

Now, Cabrera has been a better hitter the last two years than I realized so I might well have been wrong to say he's not much of an upgrade over Uribe. I can't say as I expect it to continue -- a career 273 hitter, he's hit 282 and 301 the last 2 years, kind of odd for a man his age. Meanwhile, the power is disappearing -- his career ISO is still 130 but that's thanks to the days when he had ISOs in the 150-160 range. He hasn't had an ISO over 130 since 2003. In 2007, he broke the dreaded 100 ISO barrier. I'm not sure he projects next year any better than about 270/320/380 ... maybe worse given his age. OK, ZIPS says 274/328/364 -- that would be better in the hitter's park I suppose. Uribe's no prize but 250/300/410 seems reasonable and that's not much worse than Cabrera ... though I guess I should wait to see how the park effects work out. (Note, if Cabrera is now much better with the glove than Uribe, it's still a substantial upgrade.)

Shredder, fair enough, Santana and Saunders probably aren't schmucks. You're still dumb though. :-)

By the way ... I left the numbers at work so these may not be exact, but last year in the AL, the average team gave about 45 starts to guys who finished with ERA+s of 85 or below. Amazingly, the Red Sox had 0, but the other playoff teams had 29 (Indians), 30 (Yanks) and 45 (Angels). Other good teams with high counts (from memory) were the Twins and Seattle. The bottom teams were the worst with as many as half their starts going to such pitchers (though some of that was TB's defense). Obviously most of that is talent level, not injuries/unexpected ineffectiveness.

So, do the Red Sox win the division if they get 30-45 starts like that? The Sox did use 22 starts outside their "intended 5" so I'm not suggesting it was all good luck with health (although 22 is a pretty low number), just curious as to the impact of healthy and deep starters.
   193. CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo Posted: November 20, 2007 at 09:58 AM (#2620995)
Uribe's no prize but 250/300/410 seems reasonable and that's not much worse than Cabrera

A .300 OBP for Uribe doesn't seem reasonable at all. His OBP the last two seasons, or ~975 at-bats, is right around .270. He's just not a very good hitter and it doesn't seem like (Sox hitting coach) Greg Walker has done him any favors (I'm alluding to September of 2005 when a leg-tap/kick mechanism was installed into Uribe's swing by Walt Hyrniak and Frank Thomas. Uribe proceeded to hit about .300/.400/.500 for that month. That's not to say that he's a true talent .900 OPS hitter, but he looked a whole lot better at the plate -- sitting back and taking sliders he'd normally flail away at and generating power with his legs. Ever since then it's been lots of swings-and-misses and the power he does have all seems to come from his arms or body rotation.).

Even if Cabrera performs at the worst of his projections (which I doubt, seeing that he's moving to a hitters' park and has put up a .340 OBP the past two seasons, although I do understand he's up there in age) -- say the .270/.320/.380 line -- he still figures to get on-base 20-35 more times than Uribe would (given 650 plate appearances).
   194. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: November 20, 2007 at 10:31 AM (#2620999)
I just wanted to add it because you don't come across many active Angel blogs other than Halos Heaven.

Shredder; Ouch. That hurts.


you recommending one?
   195. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 20, 2007 at 03:37 PM (#2621110)
I fail to understand how Garland doesn't have a fair amount of value. And that Williams didn't assess that value correctly.

HW, it could be about the $$. The Sox made out $$-wise.
   196. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 20, 2007 at 03:54 PM (#2621133)
Garland's going to be better than OK in 2008, getting out of the cell and getting a really good defense behind him.

That's what I thought initially, but the Cell hasn't made any huge impact on his homers allowed. Year-by-year, home homers & road homers:

2007 10-9
2006 12-14
2005 15-11
2004 16-18
Total: 53-52

Normally teams hit 52% of their homers at home, so pitchers should allow 52% on the road. Given that Garland has allowed 52 on the road over the last four years, that means he should've allowed 48 at home in that period. An extra homer a year. That's what the Cell has done to him.

(looks a little closer)

Actually, that's not quite right, as he's pitched more innings on the road - 449.3 to 408. So that's . .. .maybe 2 homers a season? At most, yea.

Still, he's actually pitched better in The Cell.

Home/Road RA & ERA:
4.10 to 4.45 ERA
4.46 to 4.85 RA

I don't see how The Cell has hurt him.

How does Jeff Suppan not make that list? I suspect putting Garland at the top of your K cutoff (defensible as you point out) causes you to miss a lot of pretty comparable guys.

Suppan didn't become a full-time starter until age 24. He had 1043 IP from ages 22-27. His walk rate of 2.99 barely makes it. His K-rate was 4.99. It's IP, not Ks that drop out Suppan.
   197. Shredder Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:26 PM (#2621158)

you recommending one?
Just had to kick a guy while he's down, huh?
Shredder, fair enough, Santana and Saunders probably aren't schmucks. You're still dumb though. :-)
I think this was meant for Blackhawk's #176. Except probably the dumb part. I'm sure that was meant for me.
   198. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:38 PM (#2621172)
Doc:

I have likely not communicated my thoughts well on this topic so I will try and lay out my views in bullet form:

--Jon Garland is a durable starter
--Jon Garland has pitched in the tougher league
--Jon Garland has pitched in a challenging division
--Jon Garland has generated results over a period of years
--Jon Garland has no significant injury history
--Jon Garland is 28 years old
--The current market for pitchers, for PITCHERS, is high. Meaning many want few have
--Orlando Cabrera is 32 years old
--Orlando Cabrera is 32 YEARS OLD
--Orlando Cabrera is nothing special as far as shortstops go. He's ok
--Both players are in their walk year

I don't see how this is a straight up swap of assets.

David wants to flail me and others for not properly assessing Garland's actual ABILITIES. Which is a different discussion.

I am referring to Garland's perceived VALUE. And at this time in THIS market how is Garland's value not X greater than an Orlando Cabrera?

That is the part I don't understand.........
   199. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:02 PM (#2621203)
I have likely not communicated my thoughts well on this topic so I will try and lay out my views in bullet form...I don't see how this is a straight up swap of assets.

No, I totally got what you were saying about the <u>players</u>. I agree that it's not a fair swap of (ed.: perceived) talent. But the factor you're leaving out is that Cabrera is cheaper than Garland and (reportedly) Cabrera also came with cash. Probably KW could've gotten more than Cabrera. But then he wouldn't have the extra cash.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time KW has traded down to get some cash to make some other moves...like when your Brewers picked up Lee for Pods and Vizcaino, KW took the savings and signed Iguchi, which made the whole thing look a lot better.

O' course, if he stands pat, it really looks bad.
   200. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:07 PM (#2621209)
And IMO Mr. Cameron shot from the hip and now feels the need to defend that shot against all reason. Whatever, dude, that's human nature, but if you think Garland - Cabrera makes the Halos weaker, you're nutso. You can talk peripherals all you like, but Garland has been getting it done for years and AFAIK has no real injury (although again, it wouldn't be the first time KW knew more than would be wise to tell about something like that).
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHow long of a season does it take before talent beats chance? - Beyond the Box Score
(32 - 5:42am, Oct 20)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(95 - 5:19am, Oct 20)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(56 - 4:13am, Oct 20)
Last: Sunday silence

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(2 - 3:12am, Oct 20)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(439 - 2:48am, Oct 20)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2527 - 2:06am, Oct 20)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogJosh Byrnes seen as a leader for job under Dodgers president Friedman - CBSSports.com
(4 - 1:54am, Oct 20)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogJAVIER prospect comparison system, now with speed! - Beyond the Box Score
(1 - 1:34am, Oct 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(260 - 1:22am, Oct 20)
Last: Norcan

NewsblogDombrowski told that Iglesias 'will be fine' for 2015
(18 - 1:14am, Oct 20)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(9 - 12:43am, Oct 20)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogAngell: Gigantic
(33 - 12:41am, Oct 20)
Last: Steve Treder

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(30 - 10:52pm, Oct 19)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogJoe West named ALCS crew chief
(44 - 9:55pm, Oct 19)
Last: tfbg9

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(824 - 9:02pm, Oct 19)
Last: ursus arctos

Page rendered in 1.1458 seconds
53 querie(s) executed