Does this make sense?

Let's look at two pitcher's stat lines for 2008

Player ERA WHIP IP SO Walks HR

Pitcher A 3.91 1.24 184 173 44 24

Pitcher B 4.90 1.51 197 90 59 23

Which pitcher looks better to you? Pitcher A has a much better ERA, WHIP and throws more strikeouts while walking less than Pitcher B. Both pitchers ate a lot of innings and gave up roughly the same home runs. So far, advantage for Pitcher A. What if I told you that Pitcher A was asking for a $5 million salary, while Pitcher B received a 7.25 million (6.25 base + minimum of 1 for a buyout). Well, the scales tilt even more towards Pitcher A. Now, if I told you that Pitcher A was a future Hall of Famer, who will likely win his 300th game in 2009, you'd say that Pitcher A was definitely a better signing than Pitcher B.

Well, Pitcher A is Randy Johnson and Pitcher B is John Garland, who the Diamondbacks recently signed. As you know, Mr Johnson is now an employee of the San Francisco Giants, getting paid 8 million for 2009. However, keep in mind that he had offered a hometown discount to the Diamondbacks rumored to be 5 million. But, given the facts above, wouldn't have RJ been a better signing even at 8 million to Garlands 7.25 million?

The Diamondbacks originally cried poor when RJ signed with the Giants, and letting him go made some sense. After all, they'll have a rotation of Webb, Haren, Davis, Scherzer, with the fifth spot maybe going to Petit. That's pretty solid, if not deep. My hope was that any extra money would be going towards the bullpen which has already lost Brandon Lyon and will likely lose Juan Cruz.

Maybe the Diamondbacks have some inside medical knowledge of Johnson's back. Perhaps they don't think he'll be able to throw 150+ innings again. If that's the case, then replacing Johnson with Garland might make sense. But at this point, the move is rather curious.