CWSGuy406 Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 FWIW, Vazquez is signed through the 2007, and is scheduled to make roughly 11.25 million per year (per dugoutdollars). If you could get the Yankees to eat five million of that per year, then I'd do it. It would help them a lot out, too. It would allow really free them up of some salary and allow them to throw any kind of money they want at Beltran - it would also free them up in their pursuit of Randy Johnson. Vazquez would really fill out this rotation nicely, IMHO. Should be interesting, nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox61382 Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Just say no to Javy Vazquez. GO-AO ratio of 0.98, 0.78, and 0.80 in 02, 03, and 04 respectively. He'd get hammered in USCF This stuff is getting out of hand. Your right, the Sox should only go after Lowe, and trade away all their current pitchers since they don't have a groundball/flyball ratio better than 2.00. Please understand that every pitcher is going to be affected by USCF being a great hitters park. Some pitchers might be affected more than others, but the difference usually isn't significant. Furthermore, just because a pitcher is a groundball pitcher, doesn't mean that he is good. Lowe's great groundball/flyball ratio did a great job of producing a 5.42 ERA for him this year, and for some reason people choice to ignore this fact. Sure the Sox need to take this into consideration, but people are starting to take this stuff too far. Vazquez has great stuff, and despite his so-so year, he would be a great addition to the middle of this rotation(with the potential to be a top of the rotation starter). In regards to Giambi, he is a huge question mark, but even if they do give him a starting spot they still have another spot to fill at either 1B or DH. The Yankees are likely to make a run at Delgado this offseason, so I think they would also have interest in Konerko as well. It seems like a perfect fit for both teams if the Yankees are truely interested in moving Vazquez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 No way they get Delgado. His legs will not allow him to do much mor ethan DH, same problem they have with Giambi. I think there is no chance of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 This stuff is getting out of hand. Your right, the Sox should only go after Lowe, and trade away all their current pitchers since they don't have a groundball/flyball ratio better than 2.00. Please understand that every pitcher is going to be affected by USCF being a great hitters park. Some pitchers might be affected more than others, but the difference usually isn't significant. Furthermore, just because a pitcher is a groundball pitcher, doesn't mean that he is good. Lowe's great groundball/flyball ratio did a great job of producing a 5.42 ERA for him this year, and for some reason people choice to ignore this fact. Sure the Sox need to take this into consideration, but people are starting to take this stuff too far. Vazquez has great stuff, and despite his so-so year, he would be a great addition to the middle of this rotation(with the potential to be a top of the rotation starter). In regards to Giambi, he is a huge question mark, but even if they do give him a starting spot they still have another spot to fill at either 1B or DH. The Yankees are likely to make a run at Delgado this offseason, so I think they would also have interest in Konerko as well. It seems like a perfect fit for both teams if the Yankees are truely interested in moving Vazquez. I agree. GB/FB ratio isn't the only stat on which we should be judging pitchers. We really need to look at the whole package of the pitcher - K/9 IP, WHIP, GB/FB, BB/9. We also need to realize - like ws61382 said - that any pitcher is going to be affected by pitching here for a whole season. If we were to make this trade, it'd be a pretty big risk for this organization. It'd mean that, going into next season, we'd have right around 30 million invested in our pitching staff alone. However, that would give us another guy who is capable of pitching as a number 2-3, with very good stuff. A lot of people on this board have the thoughts that a pitcher will come our way through a trade rather than through free agency, and I think I'm starting to lean that way too. Lots of names being thrown around here, it's gonna be a fun offseason, that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshPR Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Lowe has been b****slapped these last 2 seasons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 This stuff is getting out of hand. Your right, the Sox should only go after Lowe, and trade away all their current pitchers since they don't have a groundball/flyball ratio better than 2.00. Please understand that every pitcher is going to be affected by USCF being a great hitters park. Some pitchers might be affected more than others, but the difference usually isn't significant. Furthermore, just because a pitcher is a groundball pitcher, doesn't mean that he is good. Lowe's great groundball/flyball ratio did a great job of producing a 5.42 ERA for him this year, and for some reason people choice to ignore this fact. Sure the Sox need to take this into consideration, but people are starting to take this stuff too far. Vazquez has great stuff, and despite his so-so year, he would be a great addition to the middle of this rotation(with the potential to be a top of the rotation starter). What I don't think you understand is that I have no problem with getting a neutral pitcher in here, or a pitcher being a slight flyball pitcher. There is a lot of risk involved in doing so however. Bringing in a flyball pitcher in a park where any flyball could be a homer is usually not a wise choice. I'm not advocating that we not go out and get Derek Lowe and trade the entire rotation...that is just dumb. In fact, I'm not sure that getting Lowe is even a good thing at all. What I am saying though is that if we bring in a flyball pitcher, we probably will be burned big time. If you have a tendency to give up the long ball(Vazquez gave up around 1 per start), and your GO-AO ratio is below 1.00(which Vazquez's has been over the past 3 years), it would not be a good idea to bring him in. Rumor has it that Oakland may look to move Zito this offseason...should we get him just because he's had very good seasons in the past and he has good stuff, even considering his terrible GO-AO ratio? If we could get either of them for a reasonable price(and having the Yankees take on a hefty portion of Vazquez's salary), neither would be a bad idea. Odds are, both will be quite expensive, and we'd be giving up more then we'd get in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshPR Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Looking at the stats, Lowe has been hit hard the last 2 seasons. 2003: 17-7, 203.1 IP, 216 Hits allowed, 17 HR allowed,113 RNS, 101 ER, 72 BB, 110 K's. 4.47 ERA 2004: 14-12, 182.2 IP, 224 Hits allowed, 15 HR allowed, 138 RNS, 110 ER, 71 BB, 105 K's 5.42 ERA Lowe made 4.5 Million Rather get someone else, Those are Garland type numbers and Garland is younger and Cheaper than Lowe. Why would you want 2 pitchers that are almost the same? Garland's Numbers: 2003: 12-13, 191.2 IP, 188 Hits allowed, 28 HR allowed, 103 Runs, 96 ER, 74 BB, 108 K's 4.51 ERA 2004: 12-11, 217 IP, 223 Hits allowed, 34 HR Allowed, 125 Runs, 118 ER, 76 BB, 113 K's, 4.89 ERA Garland made 2.3 Million The only difference is the total homers given Up. Both had 33 starts in 2003 and 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Looking at the stats, Lowe has been hit hard the last 2 seasons. 2003: 17-7, 203.1 IP, 216 Hits allowed, 17 HR allowed,113 RNS, 101 ER, 72 BB, 110 K's. 4.47 ERA 2004: 14-12, 182.2 IP, 224 Hits allowed, 15 HR allowed, 138 RNS, 110 ER, 71 BB, 105 K's 5.42 ERA Lowe made 4.5 Million Rather get someone else, Those are Garland type numbers and Garland is younger and Cheaper than Lowe. Why would you want 2 pitchers that are almost the same? Garland's Numbers: 2003: 12-13, 191.2 IP, 188 Hits allowed, 28 HR allowed, 103 Runs, 96 ER, 74 BB, 108 K's 4.51 ERA 2004: 12-11, 217 IP, 223 Hits allowed, 34 HR Allowed, 125 Runs, 118 ER, 76 BB, 113 K's, 4.89 ERA Garland made 2.3 Million The only difference is the total homers given Up. Both had 33 starts in 2003 and 2004 Yeah, I don't buy into this "we must get Derek Lowe because of the amount of groundball outs he gives up" theory either. What good is that ratio if he is walking 70+ batters a season and has a WHIP of 1.66, and an ERA over 5? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 We don't match up with Oakland at all. We don't have anyone to give up for Zito. They most likely can't afford Lee or Konerko although I would do either trade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Yeah, I don't buy into this "we must get Derek Lowe because of the amount of groundball outs he gives up" theory either. What good is that ratio if he is walking 70+ batters a season and has a WHIP of 1.66, and an ERA over 5? Absolutely nothing. I've noticed during my year on Soxtalk that whenever an upcoming FA performs well in the playoffs he's gushed over. Whether you were agreeing with me in the Boston/NYY thread last week or noticing it yourself, we both predicted a thread would pop up when Loaiza pitched well. Like clockwork it happen. It's as if some believe pitching well in the playoffs is the ultimate indication of success; forget the regular season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 The recriminations, blaming, crying and general angst coming out of New York is wonderful, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 The recriminations, blaming, crying and general angst coming out of New York is wonderful, isn't it? Absolutely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.