A’s Sign Sheets and Padres Sign Garland

Yesterday, the Oakland A’s agreed to terms with Ben Sheets and the San Diego Padres landed Jon Garland. Here are my thoughts on these deals.

Sheets received a one-year $10 million contract, with $2 million in incentives. I think this is way too high. I have Sheets valued at about $9 million in 2010. I’m completely ignoring his missed 2009, but I am taking into account that he hasn’t been a paragon of health for most of his career. Furthermore, anyone coming back from serious surgery poses some sort of additional risk that I’m not even accounting for. No word yet on what the incentives are, but unless they’re based on Cy Young votes or some other difficult-to-achieve honor—even an All-Star appearance is too low a threshold—I doubt he’ll be worth $12 million. Only once in his career (2004) was he ever worth that kind of money.

On the other hand, I like the Garland deal, which is a one-year, $5.3 million contract with an $6.75 million option for 2011. $600,000 of the guaranteed portion of the deal is a buyout—of which he only gets half if he declines the option—so the potential two-year total comes to $11.45 million. I have Garland valued at around $7.5 million next year. It’s a good deal for the Padres. If he pitches like he has, he’ll be on a good contract. If he pitches lights out, you get a good deal for one year and he bolts. If he pitches poorly, you can cut ties.

3 Responses “A’s Sign Sheets and Padres Sign Garland”

  1. Grant says:

    I personally believe the A’s signed Sheets as trade bait, as they often do to grab young prospects.

  2. JC says:

    Well, you’re not going to get many good prospects with a contract like that. ;-)

  3. Gary says:

    I agree with the general premise of what you’re saying, but I think your numbers just seem off.

    If you asked GM’s if they think Jon Garland will be worth 83% of what Ben Sheets will provide in value, they’d all say no.

    I’d rather have one Ben Sheets than 2 Jon Garlands, even with the health risk. So I think you’re overvaluing Garland.