Building a Champion: Jon Garland

by The Cheat on Nov 2, 2005 2:17 AM CST in White Sox News

Part of a series

Jon Garland came to the White Sox, quite famously, in a trade with the cross-town Cubs for the services of Matt Karchner. The year was 1998. The Sox were just one year removed from the White Flag trade, and were smack dab in the middle of the first season of the misguided "The Kids Can Play" marketing campaign. The Cubs, meanwhile, were in the middle of their best season in a decade, and needed some veteran presence for their bullpen.

A year earlier, Garland was the Cubs first round pick, 10th overall. -- The Sox last top ten pick was some guy named Frank Thomas. Only Atlanta has a longer stretch of non-top-10 first picks. -- This was the Cubs chance to make a run. They still didn't win the division, but hey this was the first time in 9 years that they finished better than 3rd. You have to strike while the iron is hot.

The main reason the Cubs traded him was a disappointing campaign in the Low-A Midwest league as an 18 year old. His velocity was down from the year before, topping out in the high 80's; a death sentence for a right-handed first rounder. Garland was similarly disappointing at his Low-A stop that year in the Sox system.

The next year, however, the velocity was there, reaching 91-92 on the fastball. He would go on to have a very good season at High-A for a 19 year old, and a respectable showing at AA Birmingham. He was a top prospect only because of his age relative to the league, but that would change in 2000.

Garland started the season in Charlotte, Chicago's AAA affiliate. There, he had his best season to that point in his professional career. He went 9-2 with 2.26 ERA in the smallest ballpark in the International League. He was called up and made 13 starts for the White Sox as the youngest player in baseball at 20 years old.

The next 3 years, Garland struggled to assert himself as anything more than a league average starter. Jerry Manuel seemed to hamper his development as much as anything. It seemed he was always waiting with the quick hook to pull Garland.

2005 was a breakout year for Garland. After once again putting up league average numbers in 2004, he cut down on his walk rate significantly. The result was a WHIP that ranked 4th in the AL, and translated into the 9th best ERA in the league.

Garland is entering his second year of arbitration eligibility, and should be due a salary in the $7+M range. I expect the Sox to sign him to a 3-year $22.5M deal that were being handed out like Halloween candy during last year's free agent period, or end up being the centerpiece to a large trade.

* * * * *

2005 Highlights: Back-to-Back Shutouts | That Tejada strikeout (no video) | 3rd shutout
2005 Postseason Highlights: Complete Game vs. ANA

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Garland

I know some SABR people believe that Garland was just lucky this year. I disagree, there seems to be a definite difference in him this year than last. It is mainly due to confidence. He trusts in his pitches and believes he can get himself out of a jam. I'd be glad if Chicago signed him to a 3 year deal. At worse he is league average.

AIM: shaftr01

blog

by shaftr on Nov 2, 2005 2:23 AM CST reply actions

To an extent he was "lucky"

However, I don't hear alot of people decrying Brad Radke as lucky, and that's the one pitcher whose style I think Garland will continue to emulate in the future.

He is a control pitcher, and as long as he throws strikes, with the stuff he has, he's going to be a good pitcher. He may have a season where he is only average, but more often than not he's going to be an above average innings eater who you can pencil in for 14-16 wins on the year.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 2, 2005 2:38 AM CST up reply actions

Would be a mistake to let him go

Garland is a horse right now, he's only, what, 26? He's found his stride. His biggest downside the past couple seasons was not being able to stay away from the big inning. I'm not sure to what extent a pitcher can be regarded as "lucky." How does luck manifest itself in pitching? In any case, keeping Garland for 3 years and approx. $22 mil would be a prudent move.

by the wolf on Nov 2, 2005 2:46 AM CST reply actions

luck

one could define luck as the fact that the balls hit into play do not become hits (possibly because of great defense).

AIM: shaftr01

blog

by shaftr on Nov 2, 2005 2:55 AM CST up reply actions

A good guy to have

Jon Garland is not a # 1, 2 or 3 starter, and I think everyone knows and accepts this. That said, guys like Garland are exactly what winning teams need.

I think that 18 wins and a 3.50 ERA is probably close to the high water mark for Garland. I would certainly guess that he'll reproduce that effort 2-4 more seasons sometime in his career, but I think what we are looking at as a whole with Garland is a guy that will go for 12-15 wins, an ERA somewhere around 4.00, and 200+ innings a year consistently.

He is not a superstar, but he is certainly above average. Now that he is starting to figure out that you just need to throw strikes, I feel like Garland will be a solid contributor to whatever team he is on for many years. I sincerely hope that team is the White Sox.

I would like to see the White Sox lock up Garland for 3-4 years at this point. I certainly appreciate the White Sox reluctance to sign pitchers to long-term deals and I think that strategy has served and will continue to serve them well. That said, I think this is a case where you may make an exception. He's young and it would be nice to see him pitching on the South Side into his 30's.

by moeandhobbes on Nov 2, 2005 8:38 AM CST reply actions

Garland isn't a number 3 starter?

I think you'd find a lot of teams that would love a guy with Garland's capabilities in the 3 spot.

by chrome on Nov 2, 2005 1:14 PM CST up reply actions

Point well taken

Perhaps I have a tendency to overestimate the quality of pitching in baseball. I was originally thinking along the lines that on a World Series caliber team (which, especially at this point, I think is the assumption you operate under), Garland probably wouldn't be a #3 starter. Then I started to seriously look and not try to wing it from memory, and my original thinking doesn't totally hold.

I glanced (quickly) at the starting rotations on World Series teams from 01-05, and it's even. Garland wouldn't be a #3 starter on the 05 Astros (Clemens, Pettitte, Oswalt), 05 White Sox (Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras), 04 Red Sox (Schilling, Martinez, Lowe), 03 Yankees (Clemens, Pettitte, Mussina), or 01 Yankees (same dudes as 03) - but he would on the 04 Cardinals, 03 Marlins, 02 Giants and Angels, and 01 D-backs.

Perhaps what I should have stated, and maybe even what I was getting at, is that on a World Series caliber team that is built for pitching and defense, I don't think Garland cuts it as a #3 starter. As I said, I think Garland hit a high water mark of sorts this season, next year I would expect 15 wins, an ERA around 4.00, and 200 solid innings. That is still damn fine, and if he is better than that, well then that would be just ok with me.

by moeandhobbes on Nov 2, 2005 4:28 PM CST up reply actions

look at Garland's career stats

http://baseball-reference.com/g/garlajo01.shtml

what changed this year?

Runs allowed and walks. otherwise his career stats are remarkably consistent from year to year.

hmmmmmm.

wasn't there something about Contreras allowing fewer walks the second half as well?

by spengler on Nov 2, 2005 1:48 PM CST reply actions

one other thing changed

the # of HRs he gave up decreased.

AIM: shaftr01

blog

by shaftr on Nov 2, 2005 2:12 PM CST up reply actions

that is correct

question is: can he repeat it or willhe regress?

by spengler on Nov 2, 2005 2:40 PM CST up reply actions

Not about Garland...

Rumor has it that the mysterious steroiding outfielder from a playoff team is Matt Lawton.

Deadspin has the story.

Great players make great plays.

my blog

by simplesinger on Nov 2, 2005 2:41 PM CST reply actions

turns out that was true

man, these steroid junkies just piss me off.

this may be the only thing i ever agree with john mccain on: steroid penalties must stiffen substantially. i don't want to see these assholes in the game.

using steroids will have to factor heavily into a player's ADI: both for jeopardizing his team and for being arrogant enough to think he can get away with it.

by spengler on Nov 3, 2005 11:57 PM CST up reply actions

M and H

Garland > Garcia this year.

I'd also bet on Garland having a better year than Freddy next season, too. Just a hunch.

But I'm just nitpicking. Carry on. = D

by CWSKeith on Nov 2, 2005 4:31 PM CST reply actions

for me

I would expect this season to be more representative of the rest of his career than the previous 3. Two ptches with excellent movement, good command, durable and tons of experience. He's a number 2 for the next 5 years and I put him ahead of Buerhle and Garcia on my depth chart

I still don't think they have enough hitting to win in the playoffs

by dyspeptic on Nov 3, 2005 11:27 PM CST reply actions

its all up here

there is such a thing as a starters mentality. They aproach the game different inning by inning. What Ozzie said made the difference in Garland was not just avoiding the big inning but not being worried about being yanked. If you think about it the two go together. If I don't get this guy I'm gone. Groove one or walk guys trying to be too fine and it becomes true. Great pitchers attack the plate. That's what Ozzie is yelling. If he's going to beat you then he's going to beat you.

I think that's why Garland was better this year. Confidence.

Sox win! Sox win!

by zokmaad on Nov 8, 2005 9:43 PM CST reply actions