Padilla or Garland - You make the call

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:14 AM PST Comment 72 comments

With Pineiro and Doug Davis gone. With Sheets deemed to expensive or to risky, it looks like we are down to either Padilla or Jon Garland.

Kensai on 1/15 did the breakdown with Piniero/Garland/Padilla/Looper and covers it nicely so click on the link and give it a read. However I don't want to just link to him so I'll make a few comments myself without all the future projections.

Garland Pro Argument:

Under innings eater, Jon Garland is the poster child. Has pitched over 190 innings every year since 2002.

                                                        
Player                IP From   To   W  L W-L%  ERA ERA+
Mark Buehrle      1788.1 2002 2009 115 88 .567 3.85  120
Livan Hernandez   1734.2 2002 2009  99 98 .503 4.46   97
Javier Vazquez    1721.2 2002 2009 101 96 .513 4.05  110
Roy Halladay      1710.1 2002 2009 130 59 .688 3.13  144
C.C. Sabathia     1709.0 2002 2009 119 76 .610 3.54  123
Barry Zito        1692.0 2002 2009 109 94 .537 3.94  112
Roy Oswalt        1661.2 2002 2009 123 67 .647 3.27  132
Derek Lowe        1650.2 2002 2009 121 85 .587 3.89  114
Jon Garland       1642.2 2002 2009 107 87 .552 4.38  105
Jamie Moyer       1616.2 2002 2009 107 78 .578 4.21  104

Baseball-Reference.com

View Play Index Tool Used

Local North San Fernando boy, grew up a Dodger fan, pitched for Kennedy High School
During his six starts for the Dodgers in 2009 he was very effective, albeit against less than stellar competition.
Given the youth of the rotation and the trouble the team had going deep into games, an innings eater like Garland just might be the best thing for this particular rotation.
According to wikipedia his girlfriend is USA softball 2nd baseman Lovie Jung and when things get slow, we might be able to have some fun with that.

Garland Cons:

While he does pitch a lot of innings, most of those innings are merely average. At least they are aren't bad, but they aren't inspiring either.
That is it, Kensai covers the rest so anything I say would be merely repeating what he said.

Padilla Pros:

Pitched two of the best playoff games of the last 20 years, and did it against a red hot Cardinal team, and followed that up against one of the best offensive teams in baseball.
His headhunter rep might help out a rotation not known for pitching inside
Fitted in with Manny and company
Has always pitched in offensive parks(Arizona, Phillie, Texas) until he found himself in Dodger stadium.
For some reason he found his dominance again while wearing Dodger Blue. After averaging only 4.9 K's per nine innings for the Rangers, he jumped that K Rate to 8.7 for the Dodgers.

Padilla Cons:

While he was on his best behavior for the Dodgers he has a history as long as Milton Bradley. When your teammates applaud the GM for trading you, it is a fairly good sign you are not a clubhouse guy.
He's been a lousy pitcher most of the time since 2003. In his first year in Texas (2006) he was okay but nothing to get excited about. Very very good chance his time with the Dodgers was an aberration.
Has bad aim with a gun
His headhunter rep caused problems for his teammates in Texas. Some players have reps they don't deserve but Padilla does deserve his. He has double digit hit batsman in 5 of the last 9 years, including leading the league with 17 in 2006. Since 2002 he leads all pitchers in hit batsman by a fairly large margin.

                                    
Player            HBP From   To ERA+
Vicente Padilla    98 2002 2009  100
Tim Wakefield      85 2002 2009  110
Carlos Zambrano    80 2002 2009  129
Jeff Weaver        77 2002 2009   90
David Bush         73 2004 2009   94
John Lackey        73 2002 2009  117

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 1/21/2010.

Any way you make the call:

Poll

Who would you like the Dodgers to sign between Garland and Padilla?

Consistent Jon Garland

46 votes

Playoff Hero Vicente Padilla

72 votes

118 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 72 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'm sure I'm not the only who will say, "These are the choices?"

but it does appear that these are the choices indeed… so I’d say Padilla, because he seemed content in LA so maybe he’ll grow up a bit or be a bit steadier emotionally since he’s more comfortable there than he has been. And he has better stuff than Garland. As a 4th starter at least… He’ll probably bomb out in every third start but be great in the other two.Garland seems like he’ll be mediocre in three but capable of losing all three.

Where’s the “Pay for Ben Sheets” option? ;-)

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Jan 21, 2010 9:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

you’ve got all the main rivalries covered to pis off people up there ;). Now just add the Kings to your arsenal…er, the hockey kings.

I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours

by BoulderDodger on Jan 21, 2010 9:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Heh

I am a Sharks fan, at least, so that rules that out. And go ’Quakes!

But yeah, Lakers, too… (but then I’m not alone in that department up here.)

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Jan 21, 2010 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I voted for Garland, but think we will end up with Padilla.

To me, Padilla is the most volatile; he has the highest upside, but also the lowest downside. If I want volatility, I let Stults and the young guys have both back end rotation spots.

To fill what we need, which is simply someone who will throw 6 innings just about every start, and end up as league average or slightly below, the choice is Garland.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 21, 2010 9:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hard to disagree with this, too

But aren’t the young guys pretty much being left to the 5th starter slot, not 4, at least for now? I’d frankly expect more from Elbert, McDonald, and Haeger, and company, for 4th AND 5th spots over Padilla or Garland, but since they want another veteran in the mix…

I do still vote Padilla though, I just went by “feeling” that he’ll pitch well when stabilized by being comfortable. And my feelings usually aren’t wrong! More than 50% of the time!

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Jan 21, 2010 9:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

y tu Eric?

I voted for Garland (big surprise), but I am not married to that choice. I wouldn’t be pissed if we went with Padilla instead. I think you end up getting similar value come seasons end, no matter which of the two you sign. Padilla with the higher ceiling, lower floor… and Garland as your consistent 2+ WAR pitcher. All things being equal, I think you sign the one who comes the cheapest with the least number of years (that may be equal too).
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 21, 2010 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dang

that was a surprising comment to me. I’d have bet 20 of Eric’s pounds that you’d have come down hard on the Garland side. Can’t trust you anymore.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a TEAM player :)

by Xeifrank on Jan 21, 2010 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I completely

agree with your last sentence here. If the price is cheap, than having someone consistent in the #4 slot is pretty valuable.

by robotmadeofnails on Jan 21, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ugh

if only to make me feel better about losing abreu I choose Garland, and pray that he’s at least slightly above average this year.

Or at least be Garland in 08’ where he was terrible but the offense propelled him to a 14-8 record!

I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours

by BoulderDodger on Jan 21, 2010 9:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I still think we might sign “Brian” Looper.

by silverwidow on Jan 21, 2010 9:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I would not be down with that, although maybe he rekindles some magic by joining his old Wichita State buddy Casey Blake. :)

by Eric Stephen on Jan 21, 2010 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

My hands are covering my eyes

when it comes to Looper.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Why do media hacks say that if the season started right now, Russ Ortiz would be in the rotation? Is this just ignorance?

by silverwidow on Jan 21, 2010 9:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

They might be right

Only a year ago Russ Ortiz managed to make teh Astro rotation. Why so far fetched to think he won’t do it again. He won’t last but I could easily see them giving him a spot to start the year.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The best Ortiz can hope for is the Jeff Weaver role, but even if he does win that I don’t think he’ll last very long.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 21, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

For those of you who monitor the pitches did you notice any change in what Padilla was throwing as to why his K Rate jumped so drastically while with the Dodgers?

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Huge differential between his fastball (up to 97) and the offspeed stuff.

by silverwidow on Jan 21, 2010 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So his fastball jumped in velocity when he moved from Texas to LA

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Per Fangraphs

averaged 91.6 MPH in Texas, 93.2 in LA

by Eric Stephen on Jan 21, 2010 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Better bullpen in LA

can afford to burn out earlier and let the bullpen pick him up.

/shot in the dark

by Michael White on Jan 21, 2010 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I would guess

that in the world of hitting a baseball, an increase of 2 MPH is quite significant if it also comes with command.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

how is that possible?

it was at the end of the season as well. so you’d think maayybe it should be even below his average

I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours

by BoulderDodger on Jan 21, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Also threw his curve and cutter more (but not a ton on the cutter; still more than double what he threw in Texas, and was more successful with those pitches than any other.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 21, 2010 9:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t watch him pitch in Texas, but it’s quite possible that the new environment inspired him to pitch better (and throw faster).

by silverwidow on Jan 21, 2010 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I voted for Padilla

but there’s not a ton of difference between the two. I’m more of a “when in doubt, go with the strike out pitcher.” When Padilla is “on” he’s better than Garland; Garland is more steady and average.

Truthfully, I’d just go with the cheaper option.

by Michael White on Jan 21, 2010 9:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

that's a good point

i’m all about the cheaper option at this point

I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours

by BoulderDodger on Jan 21, 2010 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

If there’s a significant difference between the two in price, I’d take the cheaper one as well.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 21, 2010 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Padilla

was not a strikeout pitcher the last few years. His time with us is quite the outlier.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

K9 of over 7 in 2006. Full year of work is pretty solid.

Not the near 9 he got in LA, but he’ll still strike out more than Garland…

by Michael White on Jan 21, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You seem to be ignoring

the < 5 level he had in Texas before the trade.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Garland also increased his K Rate with Dodgers

from 4.5 to 6.4 and that was without switching leagues? Hitters eye a problem for hitters?

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It was only six starts, but he faced:

Arizona twice (most Ks in NL)
Pittsburgh twice (lg avg Ks, 10th in NL)
Padres (7th in Ks in NL)
Giants (8th in Ks in NL)

by Eric Stephen on Jan 21, 2010 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It does help

to face Reynolds and company instead of pitching for them.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

All this talk

about Loney and his home/road splits has made me wonder if there is something about Dodger stadium that makes the hitters eye a little more difficult…just speculating

by robotmadeofnails on Jan 21, 2010 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn’t seem to bother Ethier though.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 21, 2010 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I could easily vote for either option. Part of me wants to see what Padilla could do in Dodger Stadium even though I know it could end up being a disaster, the other part would like the consistency we’d get with Garland.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Michael White is in house

You will notice that the name looks great in TrueBlue but will stand out like a sore thumb when you post elsewhere.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 9:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Jerry Crasnick chimes in

on ESPN.com to say for Brad Ausmus, it’s San Diego, Los Angeles, or retirement.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 21, 2010 9:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

That's a great read

He basically sums up the remaining starting pitchers thusly:

Who’s out there? Right-handers Ben Sheets, Jon Garland, Vicente Padilla, Pedro Martinez, Braden Looper, John Smoltz, Chien-Ming Wang, Livan Hernandez, Jose Contreras and Todd Wellemeyer, and lefties Jarrod Washburn, Erik Bedard and Noah Lowry.

And still mentions the Dodgers as possible with Sheets, but I still think that is, sadly, a pipe dream…

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Jan 21, 2010 10:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And speaking of which

don’t forget Wang as a darkhorse late add to Dodger rotation. I’m pretty sure they’re not forgetting him. Which is why they may sign one of Padilla or Garland, and then Wang later when he’s ready, and have them duke it out with the Dodgers young ’uns. Just a thought.

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Jan 21, 2010 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is why I think we get Padilla as he will probably go for $3-4M with some incentives which leaves us enough for a possible Wang/Bedard signing in April or May.

Wang seems like he would be willing to take a lower salary to play for Torre and alongside his friend Kuo.

by OB12 on Jan 21, 2010 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It is a good read

and for many of these guys you can’t really see a home for them. Just makes me wonder more and more why Ned jumped on Carroll so early when he knew there would be bargains by this time of the year.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 10:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I wonder what Tejada would go for. I am not sure if he is mentally ready for his decline but I would love to see him as utility guy for the right price. I wonder if he can play 1b.

by delias man on Jan 21, 2010 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was advocating Tejada as our regular 2B earlier in the offseason. Now that we have Carroll, I don’t think it is feasible and am ready to see what DeWitt can do.

by OB12 on Jan 21, 2010 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Is That All There Is?

I have the answer to the question—-Josh Lindblom. Put him in the back of the rotation and let him pitch. This guy is one tough cookie and has the tools and the body to make him Billz+. Yeah, I know he’s young. But all the other guys are either way too young (McDonald) emotionally, or don’t have the upside that JoshL has. Elbert? Haeger? Please.

"It's a cookbook!"---The Twilight Zone

by Buck18 on Jan 21, 2010 10:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t understand your argument against Elbert. And McDonald as a starter is far too small of a sample size.

by silverwidow on Jan 21, 2010 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Dodgers have been doing pretty well

easing their pitchers into the bigs. McDonald, Elbert, and Haeger may not have been dominant or amazing, but they at least have some idea of what to expect. I would prefer to see Lindblom out of the bullpen with maybe a few spot starts throughout the season.

by prosellis on Jan 21, 2010 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Some choice!??

Like asking, “Do you prefer electric chair or gas chamber?”

by mrdodger1966 on Jan 21, 2010 10:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

If

we didn’t already have Kershaw, Billingsley and Kuroda then maybe.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 21, 2010 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I voted Padilla

Just to see that slow curveball again, but the Lovie Jung angle is hard to ignore.

by kinbote on Jan 21, 2010 10:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

What about Washburn?

The less I hear about him, the more I think we might be involved.

by kinbote on Jan 21, 2010 10:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

My expecatation

is that all these guys want two years deals and Ned is talking one year. When they realize they better find a home then maybe they call back.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 10:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Since Xei is around

What about Guo in the rotation??

There, I said it.

by silverwidow on Jan 21, 2010 10:24 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

I worry about Kuo being able to pitch six innings over a 10-day period, let alone a single day! :)

by Eric Stephen on Jan 21, 2010 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

as long as

you have a couple rolls of duct tape around.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 21, 2010 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I voted Garland

because I am just concerned that Padilla, while the more skilled pitcher, will cause problems eventually.

It’s a real shame we can’t get one of Bedard/Sheets and one of Garland/Padilla because I think that would be a very successful combo of FA options.

by LA Taco on Jan 21, 2010 10:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I voted Padilla

though I wouldn’t be unhappy with Garland. I had never really seen much of Padilla prior to his time with the Dodgers, so I was surprised to see the amount of movement on his pitches. He has the potential to be a #2 but he likely just a #4. I must say that I am a little partial to Garland because he is a Dodger fan and genuinely seems like he wants to be on this team.

by OB12 on Jan 21, 2010 10:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I voted for Garland

just because I think the consistency is more of a pro for me than the possible upside with Padilla. But if either one is cheap, I would not complain about either one signing with us.

by robotmadeofnails on Jan 21, 2010 10:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

cant decide

garland eats innings and pitched to his average credentials while with us last year. home town guy,

padilla pitched great in the playoffs but will probably explode emotionally at some point,

so i flipped a coin and it landed on the edge, I take that to mean who ever is cheaper. Will Garland give us a AZ buyout $ discount? Does Padilla come cheap becuase at least some teams will not even think of him because of the TX experience?

My guess is Garland will be cheaper so I vote for him

by MammothDodger on Jan 21, 2010 10:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Speak of the devil

from Gurnick:

The Dodgers and Vicente Padilla have agreed on a one-year contract for a $4 million base salary

by Eric Stephen on Jan 21, 2010 10:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hey, look at me calling the salary up above. :)

by OB12 on Jan 21, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's about what we expected

yah? It’s not too expensive… 1 yr deal low commitment.

Any chance they still try for Sheets, or should I just say, sheet, and give up.

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Jan 21, 2010 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My guess is that they concede on Sheets and focus on Bedard/Wang knowing that neither of them will be ready until June.

by OB12 on Jan 21, 2010 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m all for that. one year of Padilla is just fine and dandy with me. Hopefully he’ll show us what he could do when he wearing a Dodger uni than any other uniforms he wore.

by Julio Nievas on Jan 21, 2010 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Props to Ned for pulling off a one-year.

by Julio Nievas on Jan 21, 2010 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Guess on incentive ceiling?

up to $8M – $9M?
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 21, 2010 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was just about to vote for Padilla

My reasoning being that if it is somewhat agreed that they are going to have similarly average seasons (albeit higher upside/more risk with Padilla), at least Padilla has shown that he can pitch well in the playoffs. I don’t ever want to see Garland start a playoff game.

by BFDC on Jan 21, 2010 10:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Didn't

Garland pitch well for the White Sox in the playoffs? Its been a while, so I don’t remember off hand.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 21, 2010 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

NPUT
http://www.truebluela.com/2010/1/21/1263595/dodger-ink-padilla

Might as well close this poll and thread. Wow, that happened fast.

by meercatjohn on Jan 21, 2010 11:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

dodgers

Im glad we got Padillia—I would still check out Wang- we shouldnt have traded Pierre-We need another player like Pierre-Manny is older-start the season with what we have and keep an eye out to trade for a number one starter-see what mcdonald will do-maybe even check out Pedro martinez-but he probably wants too much-Wang could be the one or also see what Ben Sheets wants—I would really go after Zack from KC-put together a good trade package even 4 top rookies or young players for him

by spc7@verizon.net on Jan 24, 2010 9:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

The Dodgers clearly needed the $8M they saved by trading Pierre.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 24, 2010 6:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

2010 Dodger Payroll

Pos	No	Player	2010 Salary
C	55	Martin	$5,050,000
1B	7	Loney	$3,100,000
2B	33	DeWitt	$410,000*
3B	23	Blake	$6,000,000
SS	15	Furcal	$8,500,000
LF	99	Manny	$7,267,760
CF	27	Kemp	$4,000,000
RF	16	Ethier	$6,000,000

2B/3B	14	Carroll	$1,350,000
2B/3B/1B	3	Belliard	$825,000
C	12	Ausmus	$850,000
OF	5	Johnson	$800,000
SS	60	Hu	$405,000*

SP	22	Kershaw	$425,000*
SP	58	Billingsley	$3,850,000
SP	18	Kuroda	$14,100,000
SP	44	Padilla	$4,025,000
SP	50	Stults	$405,000*

CL	51	Broxton	$4,000,000
LHP	52	Sherrill	$4,500,000
LHP	56	Kuo	$950,000
RHP	67	Troncoso	$425,000*
RHP	54	Belisario	$425,000*
RHP	31	McDonald	$425,000*
RHP	68	Monasterios	$460,000*

		Pierre	$4,000,000
		Andruw	$3,600,000
		Schmidt	$2,000,000
		Wolf	$2,000,000
		Hudson	$1,440,000
		Nomar	$1,250,000
		Ohman	$200,000
		Zerpa	$35,000
		Hoffmann	($50,000)

Others on 40-man roster (total: 39)
RHP	64	Guerra
RHP	37	Haeger
RHP	74	Jansen
LHP	59	Leach
RHP	73	Link
RHP	49	Schlichting
LHP	57	Elbert
RHP	47	Wade
C	9	Ellis
C	71	May
SS	87	DeJesus
OF	75	Paul
OF	17	Repko	$500,000
OF	62	Robinson

Totals			$93,522,760
Red = arbitration Asterisk (*) = estimated
For more detailed information, click here.

True Blue LA: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

True Blue LA -