Sox Acquire Javier Vazquez

[Dick Allen]

You are right, nothing ensures a repeat.  That's why you have to keep a close eye on the "now" and 3 years from now.  This is what KW has always tried to do, and he's doing it now as well.

But 3 years from now Vazquez if traded for, isn't going to be in a White Sox uniform. Vazquez for Garland nets one extra year, and a ton more money to be paid. I would rather they let Cotts become a starter in 2007 than pay all that money to Vazquez.

[Guest JimH]

Exactly, and with three years in mind, it would make more sense to keep Garland for one season and keep our prospects.  Then, you have more money to spend next season in a deep FA class, instead of having another season with 12 million tied up to Vazquez, who can easily have an ERA over 5 at the Cell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think they want cost certainty vs. the "possibility" they'll get someone in free agency. Not sure why you're not getting that picture. The White Sox have always pursued cost certainty, they did it not long ago with a similar scenario, Loaiza/Contreras.

 

Timeline:

 

- Garland turns down 3 yr. contract offer.

- Guillen golfs with Vazquez.

- Sox get aggressive about Vazquez.

 

It fits. If Garland signs, none of this is being discussed. It's the way the White Sox do business.

Edited December 13, 2005 by JimH

[timotime]

I hope it happens.

 

Garland doesn't want to stay with us, so let him leave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you are right except that vasquez is overrated and just plain blows in comparison to garland. just because the yankees pay him million upon millions doesnt actually make him good. see raul mondessy- check that, see all except about 5 or 6 yankee starting players in the last five years. and see their entire pitching staff (including all bullpen) currently.

[Dick Allen]

If the Sox have all this money lying around, why not make a run at Johnny Damon? Blow Boras away, show him the cash.

[fathom]

I think they want cost certainty vs. the "possibility" they'll get someone in free agency.  Not sure why you're not getting that picture.  The White Sox have always pursued cost certainty, they did it not long ago with a similar scenario, Loaiza/Contreras.

 

Timeline:

 

- Garland turns down 3 yr. contract offer.

- Guillen golfs with Vazquez.

- Sox get aggressive about Vazquez.

 

It fits.

 

No, I understand it, I just think it's really stupid thinking by the White Sox. If this was a top-notch pitcher we were talking about, it would make more sense. However, Vazquez is far from that the last few years. I think KW learned his lesson this season, and that lesson is to lock up players to extensions that you know you want to bring back before the offseason hits and the market goes through the roof. We're lucky we were able to bring back PK. This is something that the Cubs have done rather successfully since Maddux left them a long time ago.

Edited December 13, 2005 by fathom

[fathom]

If the Sox have all this money lying around, why not make a run at Johnny Damon? Blow Boras away, show him the cash.

 

He is AJP's buddy.

[Guest JimH]

But 3 years from now Vazquez if traded for, isn't going to be in a White Sox uniform. Vazquez for Garland nets one extra year, and a ton more money to be paid. I would rather they let Cotts become a starter in 2007 than pay all that money to Vazquez.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They have more to spend, they're spending it and they know the way to get even more $$ coming in is to be really really good for the next 2-3 years while they've got contracts under control.

 

Still not sure why there is a huge concern about spending money. Their issue is cost certainty. They know they have to pay big $$ for pitching, they'd rather have it in their back pocket vs. trying to land free agents every offseason.

[Guest JimH]

you are right except that vasquez is overrated and just plain blows in comparison to garland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Say what?

[Dick Allen]

11-15 4.47 ERA Todd Ritchie 2001 29 years old

11-15 4.42 ERA Javier Vazquez 2005 28 years old

 

Pretty scary huh?

[Guest JimH]

No, I understand it, I just think it's really stupid thinking by the White Sox.  If this was a top-notch pitcher we were talking about, it would make more sense.  However, Vazquez is far from that the last few years. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe they know more about these players than we do?

 

They do not want to lose Garland for nothing. He turned down a contract offer. His value starts going down immediately, as of right now. If he's not going to stay here and they can get a comparable pitcher, why on earth wouldn't they do that.

[Guest JimH]

11-15 4.47 ERA Todd Ritchie 2001 29 years old

11-15 4.42 ERA Javier Vazquez 2005 28 years old

 

Pretty scary huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope.

 

You can pick any two players out of a hat and make those kinds of comparisons.

[southsideirish71]

11-15 4.47 ERA Todd Ritchie 2001 29 years old

11-15 4.42 ERA Javier Vazquez 2005 28 years old

 

Pretty scary huh?

 

 

What was the Counts record and ERA before he became game 1 starter of the WS for the White Sox.

[rcpweiner]

Final words on the subject from me: In Kenny We Trust.

[timotime]

Maybe they know more about these players than we do?

 

They do not want to lose Garland for nothing.  He turned down a contract offer.  His value starts going down immediately, as of right now.  If he's not going to stay here and they can get a comparable pitcher, why on earth wouldn't they do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

we have another year to sign him for big $$$. everyone is waiting for him to prove that last year was not a fluke. everyone needs to stop jumping the damn gun.

 

and vasquez sucks, i dont care what anyone says. thank you, dick allan, for that comparison to danny wright.

[hitlesswonder]

I think they want cost certainty vs. the "possibility" they'll get someone in free agency.  Not sure why you're not getting that picture.  The White Sox have always pursued cost certainty, they did it not long ago with a similar scenario, Loaiza/Contreras.

 

Timeline:

 

- Garland turns down 3 yr. contract offer.

- Guillen golfs with Vazquez.

- Sox get aggressive about Vazquez.

 

It fits.  If Garland signs, none of this is being discussed.  It's the way the White Sox do business.

 

I don't doubt they are pursuing Vasquez to fill the rotation for a couple of years. But the difference between the Loaiza trade and this would be:

 

1) Loaiza was pitching terribly at the time of the trade

2) Contreras cost 6M a year. Even adjusting for baseball inflation, JV is much more expensive

 

This trade may be what the Sox want to do, but I don't think it's a good idea unless the Sox don't pay all of JV's salary.

[Guest JimH]

and vasquez sucks, i dont care what anyone says. thank you, dick allan, for that comparison to danny wright.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ummm, yeah, right.

 

Personally I think Garland does not want to play here, he wants to play on the west coast. And therefore he is intent on exploring free agency, unless he gets traded out west in the meantime.

 

But what do I know.

[Dick Allen]

What was the Counts record and ERA before he became game 1 starter of the WS for the White Sox.

His ERA was high, but he has a pretty good winning percentage. Vazquez seems to be on a downswing. His second half of 2004 was so awful the Yankees couldn't wait to unload him. 2005 was a little better, but he was pitching in the NL. Vazquez is not .500 for his career. For that you think it is wise to pay him as much as you would be paying Paul Konerko the next 2 seasons while giving up a guy who probably has turned the corner, and a prospect many believe could eventually be the best player on your team? Vazquez is mediocre at best, no matter if he is golfing with Ozzie or not. The $24 million he would have to be paid the next 2 seasons could be spent more wisely IMO.

[timotime]

Ummm, yeah, right.

 

Personally I think Garland does not want to play here, he wants to play on the west coast.  And therefore he is intent on exploring free agency, unless he gets traded out west in the meantime.

 

But what do I know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

and what if garland becomes buhrle-esque this season? he could continue the brilliance from last season (or he could fail), and no one can predict what will happen. you want to trade him now, when he still has another year on his contract, after an incredible year, when we arent paying out of the ass to have him? and on top of that, you want to trade him for vasquez (who is, at best, another average-skilled overpaid yankee player)? while we are at it, let's trade mark buhrle for randy johnson.

[Guest JimH]

His ERA was high, but he has a pretty good winning percentage. Vazquez seems to be on a downswing. His second half of 2004 was so awful the Yankees couldn't wait to unload him. 2005 was a little better, but he was pitching in the NL. Vazquez is not .500 for his career. For that you think it is wise to pay him as much as you would be paying Paul Konerko the next 2 seasons while giving up a guy who probably has turned the corner, and a prospect many believe could eventually be the best player on your team? Vazquez is mediocre at best, no matter if he is golfing with Ozzie or not. The $24 million he would have to be paid the next 2 seasons could be spent more wisely IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well at least you analyze instead of saying "he sucks". I see your viewpoint even though we differ. Agree to disagree.

[Dick Allen]

Nope.

 

You can pick any two players out of a hat and make those kinds of comparisons.

The reason I posted this is because if they make the trade, the components will be eerily similar. The Sox will trade a pitcher who won as many or more games the previous year than the one they will receive in return. They will be getting an older, more expensive player, and they will throw in another player who actually may be able to contribute at the major league level.

[Guest JimH]

and what if garland becomes buhrle-esque this season? he could continue the brilliance from last season (or he could fail), and no one can predict what will happen. you want to trade him now, when he still has another year on his contract, after an incredible year, when we arent paying out of the ass to have him? and on top of that, you want to trade him for vasquez (who is, at best, another average-skilled overpaid yankee player)? while we are at it, let's trade mark buhrle for randy johnson.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What if, what if, what if.

 

Check out Garland's 2nd half, it wasn't that great either.

 

I have watched Vazquez pitch a lot, he is far from "he sucks". I suspect you haven't, but that's ok, agree to disagree.

[Wanne]

I'm not big on seeing Garland go...but if he's gonna be gone next year and the only thing we see in return is a couple of draft picks, I'd rather pick up somebody of Vaz stature. He could very well be "reborn" like the Count was this past year.

 

Plus...for those who say he's been bad the past few years...his 11-15 record and 4.42 era are a little deceiving. Go and look at his game log and look at how many games he lost where the DBacks only scored less than 3 runs per game. Out of his 32 starts...the DBacks scored 3 or less runs per game in 24 of those games. In 19 of those 32 they scored 2 or less runs.

 

Take out his abysmal first month (hell...first game of 7 ER in 1.2 IP...he did pretty well to bring his era down into the 4's. He's pretty up and down in terms of ERs...but lost a decent number of 3-1, 4-2 games....but did have a few games of getting pounded.

 

Is he better than Garland...no. But Jon has had ONE good year and will probably move on. Would I give up Anderson or Young in the deal....NO.

[WHITESOXRANDY]

I say that this trade never happens anyway.

[AddisonStSox]

Not reading 19 pages, but, I gather most think Garland would be the guy to go in this alleged trade discussion and folks are arguing for or against it? Pretty fair assessment?

 

Personally, I just can't see Williams trading Garland unless he absolutely feels he stands no chance of re-signing him after this season. That, or, perhaps he doesn't want to re-sign him after this season.

 

As much as I like the idea of having Vazquez locked up in a Sox uniform for the next season or two, I'd hate to see Garland--who seems to be coming into his own--go.

 

There's always FA, Kenny.

[RockRaines]

wow, i cant believe how much everyone is undervaluing Garland. He is a young innings eater. He was basically was untouchable for our hot streak last year and was lights out in the playoffs. He went to Anaheim and shut down the Angels on longer than usual rest. He is worth more to me than any other pitcher out there. He fits our mold great, and he is just now turning the corner on a young career. He is a great fit in our clubhouse, is close friends with our ACE, and seriously is more valuable to the team than Vazquez would ever be. The trade rumor is attrotious, and if it went down my opinion of KW's moves would take ahuge nosedive.