Wolf’s Deal with LA
Randy Wolf had a season not unlike that of Jim Edmonds, wherein he was awful for the Padres, was traded off mid season and then blossomed into a player San Diego were hoping they might have been getting in the first place.
Edmonds remains unsigned this winter, but finally Randy Wolf has put his name to the dotted line, with Los Angeles. Does this mark the beginning of a shift away from pursuing Manny Ramirez? That will be an interesting angle to watch in the forthcoming weeks.
Moving on to Wolf himself, the contract calls for $5 million in guaranteed money and up to another $3 million in incentives. The incentives kick in at $500,000 for reaching 170, 180, 185, 190, 195 and 200 innings pitched.
The various projections range from CHONE marking Wolf down for just 122 innings at a below average FIP to Marcel at 165 innings at a slightly above average FIP. Translated to wins, it comes out to between 1.4 and 2.4 wins. Neither of those projections have Wolf earning any incentives, which means he would end up with just the $5 million paid. Given the value of those seasons ($6.3 million by CHONE, $10.8 by Marcel), this is a good to great deal for the Dodgers.
There are really two possible downsides for LA here. One is that Wolf gets hurt entirely. In that case, they’re out $5 million without much production at all. That’s not too much of a problem as long as they have adequate backups planned. The other is if Wolf is healthy but not overly effective, getting to 190 or so innings of below average pitching. In that case, the Dodgers would probably break even on value unless Wolf is really mediocre, which would seem to go against the whole pitching lots of innings assumption. This comes across as a mild-risk/medium-reward deal for the Dodgers; well done.
Print This Post
I really don’t understand the inconsistencies in the analysis being offered here at Fangraphs. For example, according to David Cameron, Arizona “ruined their off season” by signing Jon Garland for 6 million with an option and a buyout.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dbacks-sign-garland-why
But now I read according to Matthew Carruth, the Wolf deal at 5 million + innings incentives is a good deal for LA. However when I look at the projections being offered on the site, it seems the data is being applied….ahem…..unevenly to say the least.
Garland:
Chone 189 IP 4.49 FIP
Marcel 179 IP 4.43 FIP
Wolf
Chone 122 IP 4.55 FIP
Marcel 165 IP 4.29 FIP
Heading over to Chone’s site, I see he has Garland projected for 1.8 WAR and Wolf projected for 1.2 WAR.
http://baseballprojection.com/wolf-ra3450.htm
http://baseballprojection.com/garlajo2948.htm
I realize that Carruth and Cameron are two different people, however they are both posting articles under the same Fangraphs banner. If I am to take this site’s analysis and interpretation of the metrics you are presenting , seriously I am going to need to see a lot more consistency of thought and presentation and a lot less bias and hyperbole.
You need to look at the respective teams that signed them and their depth at the position… Wolf is a better signing because of the lack of quality arms slotted at the back end of LA’s rotation. Jason Schmidt? Shawn Estes? Are you kidding?
And Garland replaces Yusmeiro Petit or Juan Guttierez or Billy Buckner. How’s that not an improvement? In fact, Randy Wolf does not project to be much of an improvement over the guys who would be getting his starts in the back of LA’s rotation. Have a look for yourself
http://www.baseballprojection.com/LAN2009p.htm
Now, maybe Joe Torre won’t trust Eric Stults or James McDonald or Claudio Vargas, and maybe Jason Schmidt will never throw another inning in Dodgers uniform, but let’s not sit here and pretend that Randy Wolf represents significant improvement over what the Dodgers would’ve gotten from their internal options. He is not–yet he will cost anywhere between 5m and 8m more than either Stults or McDonald next year. In fact, if Randy Wolf may very well be the exact same pitcher he was during his last two stints in the NL West–but hey, he represents a great deal for LA.
Levski… I think you are over-rating Garland tremendously… Granted, he has thrown over 190 inn. for 7 straight years, but look at his deteriorating #’s since ‘05 with the Sox…
k/9, bb/9, FIP, etc…
the only thing he has going for him is he is now pitching in the NL West where he can get away with having decent stuff. Oddly enough, Randy Johnson made quite a turnaround in 07 after moving to the NL West.
Uh…James McDonald? Odalis Perez? Braden Looper? Jon Garland? Eric Stults?
Somebody? If Garland and Wolf are identical, why not just sign Garland for .75 million more and get the 200 innings he throws every year instead of taking the guy who averaged less than 100 from 2004-2007. :o
The D’Backs replaced Randy Johnson with a worse pitcher. The Dodgers did not.
Yeah, you already wrote that. And I read it. The fact remains that you want to ignore all the circumstances surrounding Johnson’s departure from AZ, and Garland’s arrival. And I hate rehashing an old story but here are the facts:
(1) AZ made a (granted) low ball offer of around $3m, while RJ’s agents wanted at least $7.5m. At that time, $3m was all the money the Dbacks had for a starter.
(2) RJ’s agents rejected that offer outright and refused to further negotiate with the Dbacks, despite the Dbacks attempts to re-engage them in further talks.
(3) RJ’s agents took the offer from San Fran (which can be up to $13m, as it includes $5m in incentives) and never told the Dbacks about the SF offer, and never told the Dbacks that RJ was about to accept it.
(4) At about that time, the Dbacks floated a contract offer of about $6m to RJ’s agents–but it appears that they not only rejected it, but there’s rumors they never even mentioned it to RJ, and instead told him to take the SF offer.
(5) The Dbacks decided to put the $6m (which had increased from the original $3m because they shifted money originally slated for their draft budget back into the free agent budget) and get themselves the best starter they could–in this case Garland.
Again, I know that sounding holier than thou is the modus operandi around here, but you’d think people would take more time to look at each situation more carefully before throwing out things like “worst offseason ever” and passing it off as analysis.
Where did Dave say anything about “worst offseason ever”?
Levski (and all),
if you have an issue regarding the Garland analysis, please take it there. This thread is about Randy Wolf.
How does this compare with the Jon Garland signing?
There is no bigger Randy Johnson fan on the planet than I. I’ve followed Randy’s career for years, Randy gave my son a signed gift before he left for a tour of duty in Iraq, Randy IS the only Arizona Hall of Famer and is the true all-time face of this franchise, and I was upset as all get out when he appeared to have been low-balled and subsequently signed with the Giants. I’ve said this and more over at dbbp.org.
That said, I think Jon Garland is getting a bum rap solely because of the Randy Johnson context. Had Jon signed with Arizona without being “Randy’s replacement” I think he’d have been seen in a far more positive light. I’ll give Jon a shot in 2009 and let his results frame my judgment. Based on available evidence, it’s my belief that Jon’s results will be equal to or better than Randy Wolf’s.
Levski, I think the problem was with Cameron’s article about Garland, more than the Wolf article. The Wolf article is right on, the Garland one was a lot of hyperbole. I think Cameron was blasting the DBacks more for their inconsistencies of letting Randy Johnson go and then signing Garland. I think he just worded his article carelessly. Cameron has some great articles on WAR and other topics, so I can easily give him a mulligan on the Garland one.
vr, Xei
I don’t need a mulligan. If an Arizona fan (and let’s be honest, that’s what levski is – there’s no objectivity in his opinions) doesn’t like the fact that his GM made his team worse this winter, or doesn’t like having that pointed out, or whatever, I honestly don’t really care that much.
@Dave Cameron
You said, “The D’Backs replaced Randy Johnson with a worse pitcher. The Dodgers did not.”
You’re right that the Dodgers didn’t replace Randy Johnson. But it looks like you’re saying that Wolf is better than Derek Lowe. I find it hard to believe that’s what you intended.
Listen, most people who look at the RJ-Garland situation from the outside, in a vacuum, without looking at how the offseason played out, and without thinking about the dynamics of the RJ and Garland negotiations, would arrive at the conclusion you did. RJ is very likely a better pitcher than Garland right now.
I think that your original article understated the risk associated with having Randy Johnson next year, those risks being age and injury, on top of the baggage that goes around with having Randy Johnson. And your article overstated the gap in projected performance between RJ and Garland next year.
We are not talking about comparing the 1999 version of Randy Johnson with the 2008 version of Jon Garland here. We are talking about comparing the projected 2009 version of Randy Johnson with the projected 2009 version of Jon Garland–and believe me, despite all the sound and fury that you whipped up in your earlier article, in the end the difference between the two of them won’t be that much–at least not enough to justify the categorical dismissal slash huffing and puffing slash “that GM is so dumb” argument of your earlier piece.
Finally, I understand you don’t care about how YOU are perceived by people who read this site. You probably should care, however, about how YOUR ANALYSIS is perceived by people who read this site. Let’s face it, people here aren’t as bad as some guy who claimed at THT that Garland was a flyball pitcher, but come on, guys, more fact checking and less vitriol won’t really hurt you.
Levski, it’s really not that complicated. Wolf < Garland < Johnson, agree?
Given similar salaries, picking Garland over Johnson is stupid. However, if those two guys aren’t available, even the worst pitcher of the three (Wolf) can be a good value at the right price.
This isn’t about Wolf vs. Garland. One team signed the best pitcher they could, the other team didn’t.
I think another important thing to consider is that Arizona’s budget is now essentially exhausted, whereas LA has plenty of money for another medium to big signing.
3 year weighted WAR, Randy Johnson 3.02, Jon Garland 3.00
No way did Arizona screw up their whole offseason by signing Garland. In fact, it was a nice save.
vr, Xei
I’m not an AZ fan, but I agree with Levski here.
The whole movement towards sabermetrics is to add some objectivity that was previously lacking – and in that regards, I value info and analysis on sites such as Fangraphs because it separates the player from the team, and isolates the player’s contribution towards winning.
Now all sports fans know that there is no “I” in team, so one should take into account team dynamics (such as that Uncle Cliffy Floyd article touched upon, and these comments touch upon about how the Dodgers have more money for more players or replacing Randy Johnson). But we all like sabermetrics because it sloughs away the Ecksteinian skillz that are lauded but may be meaningless towards the almight W-L.
In that regard, comparing this Wolf signing to the Garland signing is very appropriate. The basic question is, what are these pitchers worth, in wins and in the translated contract dollars. It’s appropriate to demand the same level of rigor in the analysis of the Wolf contract as given the Garland contract.
As Levski pointed out, according to saber numbers, Garland is projected to be a better pitcher than Wolf in 2009, so the extra $1m in his contract may make a whole lotta sense. Trashing the Garland move while mildly praising the Wolf move speaks to lack of critical consistency. And such questions as to why there isn’t such consistency are valid, imo.
I think Cameron’s point was that it makes no sense to sign Garland for basically 8.75 million when Johnson was (by most reports) willing to take less. Why refuse Johnson, but then settle for Garland? That’s the context his comments should be considered in. Not just in a vacuum.
Wolf, on the other hand, is just replacing a hole in the rotation. My only problem with Wolf is that there were arguably 1-2 better options on the market looking for similar or lesser deals, 1 similar option that took a minor league contract, and 2 prospects who could be just as useful.
Randy Johnson is a superior pitcher to Garland, but signing Garland is a lot more safe than signing Johnson. RJ is 45 years old and there is really no projection for how effective or healthy he will be. Sure he had a great year in 08, but at 45 there really is too much risk, especially for a “playoff team” like the D-Backs on counting on him.
Garland isn’t a very good pitcher as most Sabermetric stats will show. He will, in all likelihood be even worse than last year because he is a ground ball pitcher playing in front of the worst infield defenses in recent memory. However, over 200 mediocre innings last year, he was still worth nearly 2 WAR. He is about a sure a thing as you can get to pitch 200 innings, and even as a below average pitcher he is a (relatively) valuable player. As a 4/5 starter on a playoff team, it makes sense to sign a guy like that, even if RJ happens to pitch much better next year.
If Arizona is one of the worst infield defenses in recent memory then your memory really sucks. Ten infielders dating back to 2002 (including J.T. Snow, shockingly) recorded a UZR/150 worse than Arizona’s collective infield UZR/150 last year. When one person can (and frequently does) single-handedly do more damage than your entire four-man unit combined, you’re not exactly the worst anything in recent anything. Six teams had worse infield UZRs than Arizona in 2008 alone, so if by “in recent memory” you meant “last year”, I suppose you’re right.
buttsecks…I am not talking about last year. I’m talking about 2009. Here are the career UZR/150’s of next years starting infield.
1B Jackson: -1.6
2B Lopez: -4.4
SS Drew: -13.5
3B Reynolds: -4.6
Reynolds and Lopez are both among the worst fielders at there position according to Dewan’s +/- system as well.
It’s a good thing that Garland isn’t a ground ball pitcher then.
According to statcorner his ground ball percentage was around 50% last year and his GB/FB was a little less than 2.5/1. Sounds like a ground ball pitcher too me.
1. FB% on StatCorner separates outfield flies from infield flies for the purpose of calculating tRA. You’ll have to add the two values to return a ratio of 1.68.
2. Please stop using one year of data. If you have even so much as unsourced anecdotal evidence that Garland’s spike in GB% was attributable to a sustainable change in style, repertoire, or approach and not merely random variation, then I will concede to you this point.
Okay. Using Fangraphs data, his career ground ball percentage is around 45%. And his GB/FB ration is 1.29. Furthermore he has never allowed more ground balls than fly balls in ANY season in the majors.
Nick-The point is that Cameron was NOT comparing Garland/Johnson in a vacuum. He’s asking why the D-Backs would lowball Johnson and then turn around to give Garland 9 million. It’s a valid question considering their projections/stats.
That was the only point I was trying to make. As a Dodger fan, I hope both fail anyway. :o
Also, I don’t mean to interject myself into the discussion, but the league average GB% is around 42-43%.
When people talk about “groundball pitchers”, they usually talk about guys like Derek Lowe or Brandon Webb who have GB% in the 60s.
Nick, if you’re talking about the 2009 Arizona infield, you need to pencil in Tracy at 1B. Bob Melvin made a point of saying Saturday at Chase Field that Tracy/Clark will be covering 1B in 2009 and that Conor is the starting LFer.
OK. Tracy’s career UZR/150 is 0.5 and Clark’s is -0.9. It doesn’t really chance much.
Dodgers screwed up their entire offseason
because they replaced Derek Lowe, Brad Penny and Takashi Saito by signing Randy Wolf
lol
I really don’t want to re-visit the Garland article in a Wolf thread, so apologies to Matthew Carruth. I was simply struck by the inconsistency of the analysis offered in the Wolf and Garland articles–two seemingly similar pitchers signed to rather similar contracts by teams that project to do similarly in the 2009 season. One team gets ripped, the other team gets padded on the back.
By the way, Matthew, I don’t see anywhere in the article the following passage:
“Ned Colletti had the opportunity to sign Randy Johnson for $8m, on one year deal, and de facto steal the future Hall of Famer from arguably LA’s toughest contender for the NL West title in 2009. Instead, Colletti stupidly allowed RJ to sign with the Dodgers, and settled for a much inferior pitcher in Randy Wolf, on a contract that will very likely pay something close to the $8m that Colletti could have given to Randy Johnson.
Signing Randy Johnson to replace Derek Lowe would have been a very solid move for the Dodgers. Instead, they blew it. Instead of delivering a lethal blow to their division rivals, Colletti dilly-dallied way too long, allowed Sabean to outmaneuver him, and in the end brought back a pitcher who was downright horrible in LA just a couple of season ago. Colletti had a great chance to secure the 2009 NL West title, yet he fumbled miserably.
Congrats, Colletti, on destroying your team this offseason.”
Maybe RJ never wanted to play for LA compared to us knowing he would have played in Arizona. Maybe I find it hard to believe that you cannot actually discern the difference between LA signing Randy Wolf and Arizona letting RJ leave and then signing Garland for the same money. And maybe you should find more civil ways of expressing your displeasure, including directing them at the actual parties involved.
Uh, I meant “Colletti stupidly allowed RJ to sign with the Giants”, obviously…
So the “padded on the back” remark stands?