Garland signs "Hoffman-type" deal with Diamondbacks

[Hate those Rodents]

From Rotoworld - The Arizona Republic reports that Jon Garland and the Diamondbacks have agreed to terms on a one-year contract with an option for 2010.

According to the newspaper, "Garland's guaranteed money is believed to be in the $6 million to $8 million range" and it sounds like the option is a mutual one. Garland reportedly turned down a two-year, $14 million offer from Arizona last week.

 

I would have liked to have beaten this offer by slightly more, but alas, it's not my money or my team.

[Ennder]

I'd rather have Looper than Garland and I can't imagine he would cost as much. Of course I'd rather have Garland at $6-$8M than Suppan who is the same pitcher and costs more.

[endaround]

No they are not the same pitcher, Garland is a much better pitcher than Suppan. I doubt Garland will repeat what he did 2005-2007, but he is likely to be at least average Suppan has been above average one year in the last 4. Garland also projects better than Looper but Looper will likely cost $2m or so less.

[Ennder]

Suppan strikes out a few more than Garland, Garland walks a few less, they are roughly the same in GB/FB. These two are very close to each other. If you use xFIP you see Garland with a trend of 5.15, 4.31, 4.82, 5.02, 4.65. Suppan has a trend of 4.73, 4.55, 4.86, 4.85, 4.91.

 

These two guys are about as close to the same pitcher as you can get. Suppan K's a few more, Garland BB's a few less, otherwise they are twins.

[nate82]

I would just add some pitching depth to the team by signing players like Mulder right now. Suppan and McClung are more than likely to be the #4 and #5 pitchers entering the season.

[smbrewersfan15]

In the end I'm sure we are all would like one of the guys that is left, but I just don't think that Melvin and Mark A are going to shell out much more money at this point.

[yoshii8]

Melvin already stated this off-season that he has had interest in both Wolf and Looper, so I would expect the Brewers to end up with one of these two if we sign anybody. I wouldn't mind either one, but I would prefer Sheets, and I'm glad we didn't get Garland.

[endaround]

Suppan strikes out a few more than Garland, Garland walks a few less, they are roughly the same in GB/FB. These two are very close to each other. If you use xFIP you see Garland with a trend of 5.15, 4.31, 4.82, 5.02, 4.65. Suppan has a trend of 4.73, 4.55, 4.86, 4.85, 4.91.

 

These two guys are about as close to the same pitcher as you can get. Suppan K's a few more, Garland BB's a few less, otherwise they are twins.

 

Garland pitches a ton more innings and projects much better. I do agree that Garland is the pitcher Suppan was supposed to be.

[joepepsi]

I don't quite understand why people hate this guy. This is a great deal for the D-Backs; every team should be kicking themselves they didn't get this deal from him. 7 straight years with at least 32 starts. He was darn near great in 2005, very good in 06 and 07. His K:BB rate is trending down, so there is some concern going forward. Still I'd be overjoyed if he was the Brewers' 4th starter in 2009.

[Ennder]

I don't quite understand why people hate this guy. This is a great deal for the D-Backs; every team should be kicking themselves they didn't get this deal from him. 7 straight years with at least 32 starts. He was darn near great in 2005, very good in 06 and 07. His K:BB rate is trending down, so there is some concern going forward. Still I'd be overjoyed if he was the Brewers' 4th starter in 2009.

He is our 4th starter, only we call him Suppan and pay him more. Same exact guys. Though the fact Garland is younger is obviously an advantage as well.

[Hate those Rodents]

Suppan was signed to put up the productivity Garland does. Suppan's productivity has been far below what we'd expected him to produce.

[joepepsi]

Well I was thinking Garland as the 4th starter makes Suppan the 5th. With Bush that gives the team 3 average starting pitchers at the back of the rotation who never get injured. Plus Garland would provide some flexibility to trade Suppan and get out of that contract.

 

Not that any of this matters now..

[CheezWizHed]

As far as the "Trade Suppan" sentiment goes... it won't happen. We either eat 90% of the contract or trade for someone that has an equally bad contract. Unless he pitches lights-out this year, he is ours for two.

[monty57]

Suppan was hurt for much of last season, and his stats suffered from that. He is not as good as we hoped when he was signed, but not nearly as bad as many on this site make him out to be. That of course is assuming he's recovered from last year's injury. His contract is bad, especially in light of the current economic trends. I've said this before, but I'm not overly concerned about our current starters. My big concern is that when one of our current starters gets hurt we'll have no one to step up and fill that role. Right now, DiFelice is that guy. Hopefully, Cappy can come back from injury later in the season to fill in.

 

Not to speak for ennder, as I'm sure he knows more about baseball than I, but I believe he's saying "stat wise, Suppan is roughly the equivalent of Garland." He's not saying they're the same "stuff wise." If this is true, I'd love to have another (uninjured) Suppan if he cost half as much. Signing someone like Garland, especially to a one year deal, would be great in that it would allow McClung to fill the role he did last year. Be the long man / middle reliever until a starter goes down, and then fill in as a starter for as long as needed.

 

Since Melvin and Attanasio have stated that they probably aren't going to add much more to payroll right now, I no longer believe that signing someone like this is going to happen. Therefore, I now believe our biggest hope is that we sign a reclamation project or two to a minor league deal and have some insurance in case of injury. There's another thread already dedicated to this, so I won't travel any further down that path.

[Ennder]

Suppan was signed to put up the productivity Garland does. Suppan's productivity has been far below what we'd expected him to produce.

Garland 06-08.

 

4.51, 4.23, 4.90 ERA.

 

Suppan 06-08

 

4.12, 4.62, 4.96 ERA

 

They have the same exact skillset, they both sit in the 190 to low 200 IP most years, they both use 4 pitches, Garland throws 1-2 MPH faster with his fastball and uses it more. xFIP actually prefers Suppan over Garland, FIP prefers Garland. I mean seriously if you want this guy you basically want Suppan, about the only thing Garland has going for him is he did it in a slightly tougher league and is younger.

[JohnBriggs12]

This comparison of Garland to Suppan baffles me. The only similarities are they are both righthanded, durable and not high strikeout pitchers. But Garland is 5 years younger, throws much harder and not at all like Suppan. He's also clearly better.

 

Garland has recorded 106 wins before his 29th birthday. His career ERA is 4.47 and that's entirely in the AL. Suppan's AL career ERA is 4.96. You can't compare ERAs from different leagues. I think it's fair to say, on balance, that Garland is .50 ER better than Suppan.

 

Ennder, how can you say their skillsets are identical? Have you ever seen Garland? No way are they close. Look up Gameday's from Garland's starts and compare them with Suppan. There's not a 1-2 mph difference in their fastballs it's 5-6 mph difference. Garland works consistently at 92-93 with heavy sink. Suppan works 86-87. Suppan has to stay down in the zone but he does it more with command than a lot of sink.

 

Garland throws 75 % or more fastballs because it's his out pitch. He pounds the zone with it. If Suppan tried that, he'd have a 15 ERA. Soup has to be crafty, moving his pitches around, and setting up offspeed stuff.

 

Garland has also gone deeper in games (6.22 IP per start) than Suppan (6.07). Over the last 5 seasons, Suppan's reached 200 innings once while Garland failed to reach 200 innings just once.

[RU Rah Rah]

Garland 06-08.

 

4.51, 4.23, 4.90 ERA.

 

Suppan 06-08

 

4.12, 4.62, 4.96 ERA

I don't know if comparing AL ERA to NL ERA is exactly apples-to-apples. The ERA+ numbers are:

 

119, 108, 97, 87 (Suppan)

128, 105, 112, 91 (Garland)

[Ennder]

Garland throws 89-90 MPH at this point in his career and he only throws his fastball about 8-10% more than Suppan so I highly doubt their approach is so significantly different that it would give Suppan a 15 ERA.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/...ayerid=232&position=P

 

I don't see why this comparison confuses anyone.

 

Pitcher A

 

4.63 ERA, 5.01 K/9, 2.99 BB/9, 4.79 FIP, 1.40 GB/FB, 11.6% HR/FB

 

 

Pitcher B

 

4.47 ERA, 4.71 K/9, 2.95 BB/9, 4.74 FIP, 1.29 GB/FB, 10.8% HR/FB

 

 

You really don't get much closer than that when looking at two pitchers and in fact I'd say pitcher A has the better skillset over a full career though some of those skills have slipped some. The biggest difference between the two is that Garland has a career .289 BABIP I would guess from the White Sox having good defense from 2001-2005 since his BABIP has reverted to expected ranges since then and Suppan has a career .300.

 

Sure age and league favors Garland a bit more but he is getting older and his peripherals are going in the wrong direction at this point and he has a very bad skillset to begin with as only a moderate groundball pitcher with low K totals and without elite command. This is not a significant upgrade over Suppan, maybe 0.25 ERA of talent or so.

[crewcrazy]

Considering Randy Johnson signed for a similar deal with San Francisco and would be a huge cash cow for them as he chases 300 wins, I'm having trouble figuring out why they would elect to go with Garland instead. Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep Johnson around, since he'll likely be better but just as cheap?

[BrewCrewForever]

Honestly to me the only pitcher left on the market who is worth a contract like this is Sheets. Not Garland, Perez or Wolf.