Sox Acquire Javier Vazquez

[maggsmaggs]

What does Buehrle have to do with this, they are professionals, players come and go.

Buerhle and Jon are best friends, we know that Buerhle has already stated he would like to play with the Cards. It's possible, this could deter his signing with us after the 2007 season. I am not in favor of this deal at all. We can afford Jon with the increased attendance and $$ this year. Jon will want to stay here if we give him a fair offer, ala Konerko. People said Konerko was an east coast guy who would end up in Boston, truth be told he never wanted to play there, so hopefully the same with Garland.

[SHAFTR]

This makes sense and I would like to see Chicago trade Garland for Vazquez + either prospect or some money. The nice thing is Kenny has all the leverage in these negotiations since the White Sox are still in a good position if they don't make the deal. The Diamondbacks have to trade Vazquez.

 

Obviously, I wouldn't trade Contreras, but this is a perfect time to trade Garland. He is coming off a Career Year and will be a FA in 07. Vazquez's peripherals are head and shoulders above Garlands. The main problem Vazquez has had is the # of HRs he gives up, the same problem Garland alwalys had.

[maggsmaggs]

Exactly.  Rowand was Pierzynski's best friend on the team but now A.J. is already hoping for a long-term contract with the Sox.

Rowand and Pierzynski were teammates for less than a year and gained friendship. Buehrle and Garland have been teammates--and best friends--since 2000.

[SSH2005]

Rowand and Pierzynski were teammates for less than a year and gained friendship.  Buehrle and Garland have been teammates--and best friends--since 2000.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This friendship stuff is seriously overrated. It's all about the green. Do you really think that Garland is going to be worried about Buehrle when he is getting $10 million per year contract offers thrown at him after next season? Of course not. If Garland was so worried about Buehrle, why didn't he sign the 3 year deal that the Sox offered him a week ago? Because he wants the big pay day.

Edited December 13, 2005 by SSH2005

[fathom]

My biggest problem is this: Vazquez just isn't that good. If you're going to trade Garland or Contreras, you should be able to get a solid player, as well as a big prospect. A big market team like the Yankees would give anything to get someone like Garland. But to trade them for the high-priced underachiever wouldn't be a good trade at all.

[maggsmaggs]

Overall, I just don't see how this deal makes us better, short-term or long-term. Garland is a better pitcher than Vasquez. We had this whole thing with Pauly last year about not resigning him in season and we won the World Series and resigned. This makes us a worse ballclub.

[jphat007]

So we would be trading for a guy who is not better than either of the options going out, JUST so we'd be gaurenteed an extra year with him? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Having Vazquez gaurenteed for 06-07 doesn't make up for the drop from JG or JC to JV for 2006 when we should be good enough to win another series. Maybe if Vazquez was locked up for a reasonable amount of time, thats something you'd think about, but you are only getting 1 extra year for right around 10 mil in that year.

 

I would think that it would have to be Vazquez + a decent player for JG or JC. That might sway it.

[jphat007]

My biggest problem is this:  Vazquez just isn't that good.  If you're going to trade Garland or Contreras, you should be able to get a solid player, as well as a big prospect.  A big market team like the Yankees would give anything to get someone like Garland.  But to trade them for the high-priced underachiever wouldn't be a good trade at all.

 

Holy crap we agree on something.

[Dick Allen]

TWIW, but Gammons said last week if Arizona were to trade Vazquez, they would not pick up any of his contract, including the $3 million the Yankees send them to help pay it. That means, if their position hasn't changed, the Sox would be on the hook for $11.5 million this year, and $12.5 million next year. The way Vazquez has performed the last season and a half, I would prefer to hang on to Garland and/or Contreras at that price. I am one who doesn't think this is going to happen.

[maggsmaggs]

If we get vasquez, we also better get one of Drew, Jackson or Quentin. 25 year olds who win 18 games, don't grow on trees.

[SSH2005]

Overall, I  just don't see how this deal makes us better, short-term or long-term.  Garland is a better pitcher than Vasquez.  We had this whole thing with Pauly last year about not resigning him in season and we won the World Series and resigned.  This makes us a worse ballclub.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Garland has been better than Vazquez for one season -- 2005. Vazquez has always had much better stuff than Garland. Let me post this again:

 

Jon Garland (26 years old)

4.42 career ERA

1.38 career WHIP

.265 career BAA

4.92 career K/9

3.35 career BB/9

 

Javier Vazquez (29 years old)

4.28 career ERA

1.27 career WHIP

.260 career BAA

7.77 career K/9

2.40 career BB/9

 

Now if Garland has truly turned the corner and will continue to put up an ERA around 3.50, then by all means Garland is better. But that remains to be seen.

Edited December 13, 2005 by SSH2005

[Milkman delivers]

I hope KW shops Garland around a bit and raises his value through competition. I also hope he keeps Contreras. Cooper almost certainly can make Vazquez better, and I bet a lot of Vazquez's troubles came from playing in a place that he didn't much care for at all. It's not like the Diamondbacks really have anything going for them in terms of pitching, catching, etc. I can see where Vazquez's troubles could come from.

 

And this stuff about Buehrle not re-signing because we traded away Garland is pretty odd. If Garland walks after this year, which he would, then Buehrle would still sign somewhere else because his bestest buddy wasn't there anymore. So, why the hell not get something for Garland now?

[fathom]

TWIW, but Gammons said last week if Arizona were to trade Vazquez, they would not pick up any of his contract, including the $3 million the Yankees send them to help pay  it. That means, if their position hasn't changed,  the Sox would be on the hook for $11.5 million this year, and $12.5 million next year. The way Vazquez has performed the last season and a half, I would prefer to hang on to Garland and/or Contreras at that price. I am one who doesn't think this is going to happen.

 

I just hope KW/OG love fest for Vazquez doesn't cloud their decision making here.

[Kyyle23]

TWIW, but Gammons said last week if Arizona were to trade Vazquez, they would not pick up any of his contract, including the $3 million the Yankees send them to help pay  it. That means, if their position hasn't changed,  the Sox would be on the hook for $11.5 million this year, and $12.5 million next year. The way Vazquez has performed the last season and a half, I would prefer to hang on to Garland and/or Contreras at that price. I am one who doesn't think this is going to happen.

 

Not if they are trading for Jon Garland, they arent. f*** that bulls***, we arent sending them a budding pitcher for a well known headcase, and picking up the whole bill. If Arizona feels that they must trade Vazquez because he demands it, then the White Sox hold the hammer. KW better not let his lust for Vazquez get in the way of this deal if he should make it.

[fathom]

A lot of people on here know that I feel that if the Sox do trade Garland or Contreras, they should talk to the Reds about seeing what type of package involving them that would take to acquire Adam Dunn. Getting Vazquez just makes no sense at all, as he'll make more money than Garland would in the first year of whatever Garland's new deal would be.

[SSH2005]

TWIW, but Gammons said last week if Arizona were to trade Vazquez, they would not pick up any of his contract, including the $3 million the Yankees send them to help pay  it. That means, if their position hasn't changed,  the Sox would be on the hook for $11.5 million this year, and $12.5 million next year. The way Vazquez has performed the last season and a half, I would prefer to hang on to Garland and/or Contreras at that price. I am one who doesn't think this is going to happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Yankees are paying $3 million per year of Vazquez's contract. The Diamondbacks owe Vazquez $8.5 million in 2006 and $9.5 million in 2007. But if Arizona isn't willing to pick up any more of Vazquez's contract to trade him, I wouldn't be interested if I were KW.

 

If we get vasquez, we also better get one of Drew, Jackson or Quentin.  25 year olds who win 18 games, don't grow on trees.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhhh, okay. People are forgetting that whatever team trades for Garland may only have him for one season before he hits free agency and gets $10 million per year offers thrown at him. That lowers his trade value.

Edited December 13, 2005 by SSH2005

[jphat007]

A lot of people on here know that I feel that if the Sox do trade Garland or Contreras, they should talk to the Reds about seeing what type of package involving them that would take to acquire Adam Dunn.  Getting Vazquez just makes no sense at all, as he'll make more money than Garland would in the first year of whatever Garland's new deal would be.

 

Ack. There goes our agreement. We don't need anymore hitting. Pitching, pitching pitching, especially if we are trading away JC or JG.

[fathom]

Ack. There goes our agreement. We don't need anymore hitting. Pitching, pitching pitching, especially if we are trading away JC or JG.

 

If you acquire Dunn, then you can use other assets to acquire pitching. I just don't believe we use two of our biggest assets in Garland and Contreras to acquire a player that not many baseball people believe is ever going to be a superstar again.

[SHAFTR]

Why would we trade for a player thats needs to FIND his stuff again, when the guy we are trading FOUND it last season Jabroni?

 

Vazquez's "Bad" 05 year wasn't that bad.

8.01 K/9

4.17 K/BB

.266 BAA (.759 OPS)

1.25 WHIP

 

Compared to Garland's "Good" 05 year.

4.68 K/9

2.45 K/BB

.255 BAA (.694 OPS)

1.17 WHIP

 

I think that if you put Chicago's Defense behind Vazquez, you will see an improvement in his #s.

[SSH2005]

A lot of people on here know that I feel that if the Sox do trade Garland or Contreras, they should talk to the Reds about seeing what type of package involving them that would take to acquire Adam Dunn.  Getting Vazquez just makes no sense at all, as he'll make more money than Garland would in the first year of whatever Garland's new deal would be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Adam Dunn? Why would KW go after an outfielder via trade when we are stocked with young, cheap outfield prospects? KW will have to save some money somewhere with the insane and rising price for pitching.

Edited December 13, 2005 by SSH2005

[jphat007]

If you acquire Dunn, then you can use other assets to acquire pitching.  I just don't believe we use two of our biggest assets in Garland and Contreras to acquire a player that not many baseball people believe is ever going to be a superstar again.

 

Oh i know. Like I said below, I don't want Vazquez, especially not for those two. But I wouldn't take another hitter either. I'd demand a really good pitcher.

[fathom]

I think that if you put Chicago's Defense behind Vazquez, you will see an improvement in his #s.

 

And the improve offensives in the AL will then take away from any change. Unless the defense is able to prevent homers (35 allowed by Javier last year), I'm not so sure defense will make that much of a difference. Maybe it's just me, but I don't look forward to Vazquez giving up bombs to guys like Hafner on a frequent basis. Just cause a pitcher does well vs the Sox, it doesn't mean they're a star.

[fathom]

Adam Dunn?  Why would KW go after an outfielder via trade when we are stocked with outfield prospects?

 

He's a corner outfielder who is better now than any of our prospects, besides maybe Young, can ever dream of being.

[SSH2005]

He's a corner outfielder who is better now than any of our prospects, besides maybe Young, can ever dream of being.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We will need to have some cheap players at certain positions to also be able to afford our pitching.

[Rowand44]

Not a big fan of Vazquez at all and trading Jose is a 100 percent no no imo considering I think he'll be our best pitcher next year. If this happens it obviously means Kenny has no confidence Jon would come back next year. I wouldn't be a fan of trading Jon to get Javier at all but I'm backing up Kenny 100 percent this year, if he thinks he sees something in Vazquez then I'll go along with it. I trust Kenny completely.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Rowand44