Garland

[JonnyRed]

MLB Trade Rumors reports that Jon Garland turned down a one-year, $4 million offer. You're telling me the Cubs can't put together a better offer with incentives? He'd be a solid #5 who has pitched 195+ innings the last 4 years. Surely, Hendry has that much money to spend doesn't he? I'd think Garland would like a return to Chicago and chance to show KW and Oz what they are missing.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Thats about $3M more than I'd give him.

[Clem Fandango]

Why would you want to replace Jason Marquis with Jason Marquis?

[mikeyt34]

Why would you want to replace Jason Marquis with Jason Marquis?

 

You know Logan, I was getting ready to say, are you kidding me? Then I looked at Garland and Marquis' career numbers side by side. They are nearly identical. Amazing how close they resemble each other actually, with the exception of Garland being a bit more of a workhorse with innings pitched throughout his career.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the intention was to trade Marquis to free up money for Peavy, but then they weren't able to get Peavy, Garland could be a fallback.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Sean Marshall, Chad Gaudin and Jeff Samardzija should be the fallback, not Jon Garland.

[ThePenguin11]

I don't think that article said he was offered $4MM for one year. It mentioned that the DBacks were rumored to have $4MM left in their budget. I would bet that Garland will probably end up with a multi-year deal in the $6-8MM / yr range. He's still pitching ~200 innings per year and was decent in the first half of the year. His value has far from tanked considering what MLB teams are paying for starting pitching these days.

[bcl412]

I'd rather have Marshall in the rotation than Garland

[Eric Clipperton]

Marshall is absolutely better than Garland. Hell, I'd bring up Atkins over signing Garland, if somehow we had to add a non-Marshall/Gaudin/Shark #5 SP. Garland = ticking time-bomb that will soon blow a 6.00+ ERA all over your face, but hey at least he EATS INNINGS. Yum. Tasty, run-filled innings of "ground-ball" pitching.

[Gingerballs Lives]

I hope we get somebody for the #5 spot. I like Marshall but he and Harden make a pretty good team.

 

I don't expect more than 110-120 innings from Harden so it's nice to have Marshall pick up the slack.

[biittner77]

Starting rotation depth would be a good thing. If Marshall is the 5th starter and Zambrano and Harden got hurt at the same time it could kill the Cubs' chances. Maybe that's true of every team losing their 2 best pitchers but given their injury histories it should be a concern for the Cubs.

 

That being said, Rob Dibble has been singing Garland's praises all off season. That's enough to scare me away.

[Post Count Padder]

So we got rid of Marquis and now there's talk of Randy Wolf and Jon Garland who are both basically the same player we traded away. Fantastic.

[AlwaysaCub]

Let's not get too short on Garland here. He is a slight upgrade over Marquis and has been the better pitcher 3 of the past 4 years, last year being the exception. His 104 ERA+ is a decent bit better than Marquis' 96 ERA+. At 5 Million or whatever we saved on Marquis' contract Hendry would have gotten a slight upgrade in the rotation and added Luis Vizcaino, who obviously isn't good but relievers are fluky and you never know. I'll take that upgrade from Mr. Hendry.

 

That being said, I totally agree that the plan was to get someone good to be the 5th starter like Ben Sheets or something. But even if we do, the last time we had a "full rotation" in 2004 that really didn't last long.

Edited January 16, 2009 by AlwaysaCub

[Butterscup1679666578]

I assume you mean ERA+.

 

But regardless, trading Marquis away then signing someone who is a marginal upgrade at best, especially when someone like Marshall will probably end up being better than both, and significantly cheaper.

[jersey cubs fan]

I assume you mean ERA+.

 

But regardless, trading Marquis away then signing someone who is a marginal upgrade at best, especially when someone like Marshall will probably end up being better than both, and significantly cheaper.

 

I feel like that sentence is missing something.

[JeffH]

I assume you mean ERA+.

 

But regardless, trading Marquis away then signing someone who is a marginal upgrade at best, especially when someone like Marshall will probably end up being better than both, and significantly cheaper.

 

I feel like that sentence is missing something.

 

Coherent thought?

[AlwaysaCub]

I assume you mean ERA+.

 

But regardless, trading Marquis away then signing someone who is a marginal upgrade at best, especially when someone like Marshall will probably end up being better than both, and significantly cheaper.

 

I feel like that sentence is missing something.

 

Coherent thought?

 

Responding to what I think you meant, Marshall doesn't have a full season in him. He has a 150 IP or so wall after which he'll break down. I think Garland over a full season would be better than Marshall.

[badnews]

Jon Garland sucks. He's getting on toward Steve Trachsel/Jeff Weaver territory.

 

Is there any way I can set my preferences to block out phrases like "innings eater?"

[TruffleShuffle]

Jon Garland sucks. He's getting on toward Steve Trachsel/Jeff Weaver territory.

 

i guess that's true if you're assuming that he is as good as his worst year (2008)

[Mephistopheles]

ooooh era+ as end-all be-all.

[AlwaysaCub]

ooooh era+ as end-all be-all.

 

That's a fair point.

For Garland's career he has a 4.47 ERA in the DH league, averaging per 162 games 207 innings, 67 walks, 108 strikeouts, 26 homers allowed, and 219 hits.

 

Marquis, for his career, has a 4.55 ERA in the national league. He has averaged in his career per 162 games 189 innings, 74 walks, 112 strikeouts, 24 homers allowed, and 195 hits.

 

Really a marginal upgrade at best, a few more innings and maybe a marginal peripheral upgrade considering the league difference.

[Eric Clipperton]

ooooh era+ as end-all be-all.

 

Yeah, it's funny how ERA+ is thrown around as an "advanced" stat just because it's normalized. Garland regression will be fun, especially as Steve Phillips and John Kruk wonder what happened to such a wonderful pitcher. This would be a good time to remind everyone that Kruk's BALL+ rating is 50.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Why would you want to replace Jason Marquis with Jason Marquis?

 

Because they never should have dumped Jason Marquis.

[TruffleShuffle]

ooooh era+ as end-all be-all.

 

Yeah, it's funny how ERA+ is thrown around as an "advanced" stat just because it's normalized. Garland regression will be fun, especially as Steve Phillips and John Kruk wonder what happened to such a wonderful pitcher. This would be a good time to remind everyone that Kruk's BALL+ rating is 50.

 

he's not as good as he was during his best season but he's not as bad as he was last season. he's basically in the jeff suppan, jason marquis mold - back end starters who stay healthy, eat up innings, don't strike out many guys and, BABIP fluctuations aside, are basically league average.

[Mephistopheles]

ooooh era+ as end-all be-all.

 

That's a fair point.

For Garland's career he has a 4.47 ERA in the DH league, averaging per 162 games 207 innings, 67 walks, 108 strikeouts, 26 homers allowed, and 219 hits.

 

Marquis, for his career, has a 4.55 ERA in the national league. He has averaged in his career per 162 games 189 innings, 74 walks, 112 strikeouts, 24 homers allowed, and 195 hits.

 

Really a marginal upgrade at best, a few more innings and maybe a marginal peripheral upgrade considering the league difference.

 

Unfortunately, that wasn't my point. I was being ambiguous. My point had nothing to do with the shortcomings of ERA+.