Garland to terms with Dodgers

[Hate those Rodents]

Courtesy of Rotoworld.

[Ennder]

Nice, another overpaid guy we don't have to worry about signing.

[Invader3K]

Tom Haudricourt has a pretty nice comment about this on his blog:

 

So, with the Dodgers signing Jon Garland, they have their starting rotation for 2011 intact on Thanksgiving weekend: Kershaw, Billingsley, Kuroda, Lilly and Garland. Must be nice to have a formidable starting five all set for next year already. It just shows you how far the Brewers have to go to field a rotation anywhere close to that one.

 

Yeah, a one year deal for Garland to be their #5 doesn't look too bad.

[brewmann04]

I would rather Have Garland for a #4 guy instead of looking at Washburn and McCarthy.But i guess Fa are not knocking down the door to come to Milwaukee.

[rluzinski]

Even if Garland is only a 4.5 ERA type starter, he can only make $8 mil at most and will be the Dodgers' 5th starter. Sound like a pretty decent deal.

[danzig6767]

Even if Garland is only a 4.5 ERA type starter, he can only make $8 mil at most and will be the Dodgers' 5th starter. Sound like a pretty decent deal.

Plus, for a number 4/5 type of starter on a pretty good team, Garland has a good history health wise, he eats up 200 innings a year, and is fairly consistent with his average production.

 

A lot of people seem to hate Garland, but so long as he's not given bad long term contract or expected to be a frontline starter, he's a worthwhile asset to have as a back of the rotation starter.

[JohnBriggs12]

Garland is 31 years old, hasn't missed a start in 10 years, and is on pace for over 200 career wins. Any way you cut it, that's impressive.

[TooLiveBrew]

From '05 to '07, he was a solid SP. Aside from that he's been nothing special or impressive.

[JohnBriggs12]

From '05 to '07, he was a solid SP. Aside from that he's been nothing special or impressive.

Sorry, but anyone that can go 10 years and never miss a start either to injury or poor performance, never record an ERA over 5 while pitching most of his career in a bandbox in a league with a DH, that is worthy of praise. He's certainly had a better career than Ben Sheets.

 

In the NL, he has a 3.75 ERA in over 400 innings. Sure he pitched in SD, but given the spacious OF, he allowed only 176 hits in 200 innings.

 

Nobody is saying he's a 1 or a 2 but he's certainly been reliable as a mid rotation guy his entire career.

[TooLiveBrew]

I know you've liked him for some time, but he hasn't been much different so far in his career than Jeff Suppan at a similar age. For me, that's just not praiseworthy -- I'll agree to disagree on Garland; if my memory serves correctly, you seem to like groundball pitchers. I won't go into the Sheets comment beyond saying that I couldn't disagree with you more.

[joepepsi]

I understand the comparison between Garland and Suppan, but just for the record, Garland's career WAR through age 30 is 22.5, Suppan's through age 30 was 12.2. Garland's *ERA+ is 104, Suppan's through 30 was 101. a 3% difference (roughly) matters.

 

Granted, Garland has pitched 400 more innings than Suppan had at age 30, and made 50 more starts. But those numbers also make the argument Garland is more valuable.