babybearhater Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Peter Gammons was on baseball tonite suggesting that the three way deal with AZ and the yanks might be back on soon. Where we would trade KOnerko and Garland for Vazquez and Gordon, and he suggested that we would then sign Delgado, and the yanks would get RJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Peter Gammons was on baseball tonite suggesting that the three way deal with AZ and the yanks might be back on soon. Where we would trade KOnerko and Garland for Vazquez and Gordon, and he suggested that we would then sign Delgado, and the yanks would get RJ How do the Yanks get RJ? Do the Yanks then send Konerko and Garland to AZ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Peter Gammons was on baseball tonite suggesting that the three way deal with AZ and the yanks might be back on soon. Where we would trade KOnerko and Garland for Vazquez and Gordon, and he suggested that we would then sign Delgado, and the yanks would get RJ that's OK with me if Delgado is healthy.... finally a left handed stick in the line-up Did Gammons mention the names, or just the trade and you've heard those names other places? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomsonmi Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Bruce Levine mentioned Carlos Lee as possibly being part of the three way trade with the Yanks and Diamondbacks instead of Konerko. That actually makes some sense given that the D-Backs no longer need a first baseman and maybe with CLee it can get done straight up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 According to ESPN's Jayson Stark, the Rangers have agreed to terms with Richard Hidalgo. No terms yet, but it's probably a one-year deal worth $5 million-$6 million. Dec. 10 - 5:08 pm et Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 According to ESPN's Steve Phillips, the Red Sox have agreed to terms with David Wells. Assuming it's a one-year contract, Wells is a fine signing. He's a better option for 2005 than most of the younger pitchers getting three-year deals. He has had problems with Fenway Park in the past, but he's done much better in Boston recently and he won't have to face the Red Sox offense when he pitches there from now on. Dec. From rotoworld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Is it just me, or does Rotoworld play down everything the White Sox do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Yeah, it gets f***ing old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Bruce Levine mentioned Carlos Lee as possibly being part of the three way trade with the Yanks and Diamondbacks instead of Konerko. That actually makes some sense given that the D-Backs no longer need a first baseman and maybe with CLee it can get done straight up. That could make sense. The sox get Vazquez and prob. cash, the salaries are a wash. The sox could keep Pk, or wait to trade him to a team that doesn't get Delgado, or Sexton for a good price. [the mets might be a decent team. Maybe Kaz Matsui--the leadoff hitter and SS, move Uribe to 2b: and maybe a SP from AA Yusmiro [sp?] Petit. He's a young venezuelan who has lights out stats that rival B-macs for K/ BB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Lee>>> vazquez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted December 11, 2004 Author Share Posted December 11, 2004 Lee>>> vazquez. Agreed. But if we got Gordon along with him, and NY paid for most of the salary... is Lee > Vazquez and Gordon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Agreed. But if we got Gordon along with him, and NY paid for most of the salary... is Lee > Vazquez and Gordon? Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 According to ESPN's Steve Phillips, the Red Sox have agreed to terms with David Wells. Assuming it's a one-year contract, Wells is a fine signing. He's a better option for 2005 than most of the younger pitchers getting three-year deals. He has had problems with Fenway Park in the past, but he's done much better in Boston recently and he won't have to face the Red Sox offense when he pitches there from now on. Dec. From rotoworld. Steve Phillips, now there's a name not to trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Agreed. But if we got Gordon along with him, and NY paid for most of the salary... is Lee > Vazquez and Gordon? If that happens, one of Cotts or Adkins, most likely Adkins is probably going to be moved. And we'd have 4 setup / closer guys, so it'll be hard to keep em all happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Sure if the Sox get Gordon too, but I would not trade Lee for Vazquez straight up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Sure if the Sox get Gordon too, but I would not trade Lee for Vazquez straight up. It's funny, I'm sure most people probably would have this time last year when he was still with the Expos, but Vazquez has slipped in the eyes of so many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 It's funny, I'm sure most people probably would have this time last year when he was still with the Expos, but Vazquez has slipped in the eyes of so many. You can't look past stats and what could be a potentially awful contract. I don't doubt that he can go back to what he was with the Expos, its more is it due to health injuries or a mental/mechanical flaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 It's funny, I'm sure most people probably would have this time last year when he was still with the Expos, but Vazquez has slipped in the eyes of so many. Like i told yasny yesterday i wouldn't have because of his awful g/f ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Like i told yasny yesterday i wouldn't have because of his awful g/f ratio. Which shows why he isn't the pticher we should be targeting, I'd still prefer Odalis Perez. But Vazquez could easily be a 20 game winner if he pitched for a team like San Diego or Detroit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Esteban Loaiza may get the three-year deal he's seeking from the Nationals, TSN's Ken Rosenthal reports. It's looking like Washington GM Jim Bowden won't have the money to sign Odalis Perez, and Loaiza is a valid fallback option. We can't imagine even he would really go to three years to bring in the 2004 bust, but two years could be a possibility. According to Rosenthal, Loaiza is also receiving interest from the Indians, Dodgers, Red Sox and Mets. The first two probably have more than the last two. Dec. 10 - 10:11 pm et Zesty Esty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Carl Pavano - S - Marlins Free agent Carl Pavano is expected to make a decision within the next 24 to 48 hours, his agent said today. Pavano may now have a five-year deal -- possibly from the Tigers -- on the table. ESPN's Peter Gammons believes the Mariners, Red Sox and Yankees are the finalists for Pavano's services. The Orioles have also made a bid. From rotoworld. Now if the angels do not get pavano what the f*** are they gonna do with all their money? This is getting ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Like i told yasny yesterday i wouldn't have because of his awful g/f ratio. I posted this in another thread to DBAH0, but noone responded to it. :banghead I'm sorry, this argument is getting tiring. So do you have a stat that tells us how many homers Vazquez would've allowed at USCF, or are you just assuming because he had more flyballs hit to the warning track at Yankee Stadium? He may be less of a groundball pitcher, but he still allows fewer baserunners, and he strikes people out (which is why he allows less balls in play!) Career: Garland GO/AO 1.3, WHIP 1.44 Vazquez GO/AO .995, WHIP 1.28 The question is, who is more likely to prevent the ball from entering play? In 2004 Jon Garland got 284 ground outs, and 244 "Fly outs" (I'm assuming line drives and popups fall under the "AO" category at MLB.com) Jon also had 113 K' and gave up 223 hits. Jon put the ball in play 751 times for the 864 batters he faced, or 87% of the time. In 2004 Javier Vazquez got 189 ground outs, and 248 "Fly outs" (I'm assuming line drives and popups fall under the "AO" category at MLB.com) Javy also had 150 K's and gave up 195 hits. Javy put the ball in play 632 times for the 782 batters he faced, or 81% of the time. Keep in mind that this was a "bad" year for Javy, yet he had a smaller % of putting the ball in play than Garland, and still walked less guys. I'll take Vazquez, and maybe you should stop assuming that every flyball he gives up will sail over the fence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I posted this in another thread to DBAH0, but noone responded to it. :banghead I'm sorry, this argument is getting tiring. So do you have a stat that tells us how many homers Vazquez would've allowed at USCF, or are you just assuming because he had more flyballs hit to the warning track at Yankee Stadium? He may be less of a groundball pitcher, but he still allows fewer baserunners, and he strikes people out (which is why he allows less balls in play!) Career: Garland GO/AO 1.3, WHIP 1.44 Vazquez GO/AO .995, WHIP 1.28 The question is, who is more likely to prevent the ball from entering play? In 2004 Jon Garland got 284 ground outs, and 244 "Fly outs" (I'm assuming line drives and popups fall under the "AO" category at MLB.com) Jon also had 113 K' and gave up 223 hits. Jon put the ball in play 751 times for the 864 batters he faced, or 87% of the time. In 2004 Javier Vazquez got 189 ground outs, and 248 "Fly outs" (I'm assuming line drives and popups fall under the "AO" category at MLB.com) Javy also had 150 K's and gave up 195 hits. Javy put the ball in play 632 times for the 782 batters he faced, or 81% of the time. Keep in mind that this was a "bad" year for Javy, yet he had a smaller % of putting the ball in play than Garland, and still walked less guys. I'll take Vazquez, and maybe you should stop assuming that every flyball he gives up will sail over the fence. That's a hell of a post there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I posted this in another thread to DBAH0, but noone responded to it. :banghead I'm sorry, this argument is getting tiring. So do you have a stat that tells us how many homers Vazquez would've allowed at USCF, or are you just assuming because he had more flyballs hit to the warning track at Yankee Stadium? He may be less of a groundball pitcher, but he still allows fewer baserunners, and he strikes people out (which is why he allows less balls in play!) Career: Garland GO/AO 1.3, WHIP 1.44. Vazquez GO/AO .995, WHIP 1.29. The question is, who is more likely to prevent the ball from entering play? In 2004 Jon Garland got 284 ground outs, and 244 "Fly outs" (I'm assuming line drives and popups fall under the "AO" category at MLB.com) Jon also had 113 K' and gave up 223 hits. Jon put the ball in play 751 times for the 864 batters he faced, or 87% of the time. In 2004 Javier Vazquez got 189 ground outs, and 248 "Fly outs" (I'm assuming line drives and popups fall under the "AO" category at MLB.com) Javy also had 150 K's and gave up 195 hits. Javy put the ball in play 632 times for the 782 batters he faced, or 81% of the time. Keep in mind that this was a "bad" year for Javy, yet he had a smaller % of putting the ball in play than Garland, and still walked less guys. I'll take Vazquez, and maybe you should stop assuming that every flyball he gives up will sail over the fence. The more the ball is hit in the air the better of a chance it has of going out of the park that is my point. Anything hit here i feel has a chance to go now which i am not comfortable with. He is also known for giving a good amount of homeruns. I don't know about you but i prefer ground ball pitchers rather than fly ball pitchers Where did you get those stats? Vazquez's career whip is 1.29 and his career g/f ratio is 1.18 Garland's career whip is 1.38 and his career g/f ratio is 1.30 which is terrible for a supposed sinker baller. Edit: I am not saying a pitcher with a low g/f ratio cannot succeed here but the chances are less likely imo. Also why compare garland to vazquez? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Zesty Esty. 3 years? Wow. Esteban is a nice guy and all, but that might be the worst contract of all free agency. 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.