In the latest piece by Ken Gurnick on Dodgers.com regarding the Dodgers interest in Bobby Abreu & Adam Dunn (I agree with Phil -- this is more for the Manny negotiations than anything else), there was this sentence near the end of the article:
The two free-agent starters the Dodgers have targeted are Jon Garland and Randy Wolf. Colletti has said he wants to add a veteran to a rotation that now consists of Chad Billingsley (recovering from a broken leg), Hiroki Kuroda, Clayton Kershaw and a group that includes Jason Schmidt, Eric Stults and James McDonald.
Garland and Wolf are certainly viable veteran options to fill the rotation, and I could talk myself into liking either signing:
1) Jon Garland is rock of the group. He has made 32 or 33 starts in each of the last seven years and somehow succeeds despite a strikeout rate less than that of a slow-pitch softball pitcher.
| Year | IP | K/9 | FIP | ERA+ |
| 2005 | 221.0 | 4.68 | 4.24 | 128 |
| 2006 | 211.1 | 4.77 | 4.35 | 105 |
| 2007 | 208.1 | 4.23 | 4.36 | 112 |
| 2008 | 196.2 | 4.12 | 4.76 | 91 |
2) Randy Wolf is a familiar face to Dodger fans, who watched him start strong in 2007 before succumbing to shoulder pain, which shortened his season. His resurgence in the final two months of 2008 with Houston is most fresh in everyone's mind, but his recent past is checkered at best.
| Year | IP | K/9 | FIP | ERA+ |
| 2005 | 80.0 | 6.86 | 4.97 | 100 |
| 2006 | 56.2 | 6.99 | 6.43 | 84 |
| 2007 | 102.2 | 8.24 | 3.99 | 97 |
| 2008 | 190.1 | 7.66 | 4.17 | 93 |
It seems to me the choice is between the known quantity in Garland, the average to slightly below-average horse, and Wolf, the less durable and less effective but let's hope he magically becomes what he once was before Tommy John surgery.
My question is, why limit the choice to only two options? Both Garland and Wolf are attractive in that they don't require draft pick compensation should the Dodgers sign them. I submit the Dodgers best option for a veteran starter rests in the arm of a third option: Ben Sheets.
When healthy, Sheets is an elite pitcher. He has the 9th best ERA+ in MLB over the last 4 seasons.
| Year | IP | K/9 | FIP | ERA+ |
| 2005 | 156.2 | 8.10 | 3.31 | 128 |
| 2006 | 106.0 | 9.85 | 2.43 | 119 |
| 2007 | 141.1 | 6.75 | 4.11 | 117 |
| 2008 | 198.1 | 7.17 | 3.38 | 139 |
He is certainly injury prone, but Sheets has been more durable and more productive than Randy Wolf, to say the least. Let's look at all three starters, with some 2009 projection help from the amazing Fan Graphs site:
| Pitcher | IP avg* | Bill James FIP | Marcel FIP |
| Sheets | 150.2 | 3.46 | 3.61 |
| Garland | 209.1 | 4.67 | 4.43 |
| Wolf | 107.1 | 4.38 | 4.29 |
*IP is the average of the last 4 years
Let's assume that Sheets is only good for 100 innings in 2009, just to see what we're up against. If Sheets puts up a 3.46 ERA in 100 IP, it would take a 5.32 ERA in 109 IP to match the expected production from Garland. Don't you think James McDonald or Eric Stults can put up a 5.32 ERA? I sure do.
Signing Sheets is certainly a gamble. As a Type A free agent that was offered arbitration, the Dodgers would have to give up their #17 pick in the 2009 draft to the Brewers. However, what we know is the Dodgers are going to sign a veteran starting pitcher anyway. Why not go the extra mile and get the best one out there? Because of his injury history, Sheets is sure to command less of a contract than the Burnetts or Lowes of the world. Worst case scenario, the rotational depth picks up any slack. Best case scenario is the Dodgers have a top of the line starter that helps them sit atop the league.
0 recs | 11 comments
Ok, sorry to keep tooting the same horn
but why not Pettitte? There’s been lost of talk about Sheets but hardly any about us getting him. Yes he had a 4.54 ERA last year, but he got unlucky. He is 36, but he put up a 3.71 FIP in 204 innings last year in the AL East!!! Comparing Bill James and Marcels projections for him and Sheets for 2009:
Bill James-
Sheets: 186 IP 3.46 FIP
Pettitte: 192 IP 3.66 FIP
Marcels-
Sheets: 173 IP 3.61 FIP
Pettitte: 183 IP 3.98 FIP
These are fairly similiar when you consider the fact the projections don’t know that Sheets might still be hurt. Now consider that Pettitte doesn’t have the same injury concerns, won’t cost a first round pick unlike Sheets, and could likely be had on a one year deal where Sheets will probably get two or three years. I’d be happy with either one of them, but given the choice, assuming similiar AAV of contracts, I’ll take Pettitte in 2009. He is easily worth the 10M or so we’d spend on him for 1 year.
Brendan Scolari - December 30, 2008
re:
Pettite would be my number one option because he wouldn’t cost us a draft pick and he’d prosper in the NL West. Sheets would be number two. Oliver Perez would be number three. Garland would be to expensive for the production. As Kensai said, he wants to get paid like he’s a 3 or 4.
When you look at the option of paying Garland or Wolf 10 Million per year it really makes no sense that we didn’t pick up the Penny option. Not picking up the Penny option only makes sense if he was replaced with a much better pitcher like Sheets or Pettitte. Not Garland or Wolf. He must really have pissed off Torre this summer.
Phil Gurnee - December 30, 2008
I'd be fine with Pettitte
On a one year deal. I just am drawn to the Van Wilder esque “dare to be great” scenario with Sheets.
Eric Stephen - December 30, 2008
Yeah but I think Pettitte would put up similiar numbers in the NL West
with the other benefits mentioned above? You really think Sheets would be much better?
Brendan Scolari - December 30, 2008
id rather have a 17 pick
than sheets
he doesn’t seem interested in coming to la anyways.
JLS23 - December 30, 2008
I'd take Sheets over the pick
but not Sheets over Pettitte and the pick. Or if we don’t sign Manny (hypothetically, hopefuly we will) it’d be great to get both of them.
Brendan Scolari - December 30, 2008
Garland...
Other than one year, he’s pretty much been a league average pitcher with tRA’s indicating that he’s much worse (granted he’s consistently outperformed those).
Pitchers with low k-rates are also prone to high levels of variation and quick attrition. He also seems to think he’s a third or fourth starter worthy of a multi-year deal. Pass.
Chad Moriyama - December 30, 2008
Go International
I can’t see why we can’t tap into the international market again. Kenshin Kawakami and Koji Uerehara. Both seem like good picks without having to pay a fee or give up a draft pick.
Dusto_Magnifico - December 30, 2008
re:
I have not heard that we are interested so have not done any fact finding on either pitcher.
Phil Gurnee - December 30, 2008
There's got to be a better way.
To me Garland is just a more athletic version of Hendrickson.
And Garland is the most logical choice on this list –
Meh
68elcamino427 - December 30, 2008
More Athletic Than an NBA Player?
That would be quite a feat! :)
Eric Stephen - December 31, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of True Blue LA to post a comment.