Sox Acquire Javier Vazquez

[Guest JimH]

It could be Vazquez is owed $24M over the next two years though couldn't it? Do the Dbacks absolutely have to forfeit that $3M from the Yankees for '06 and '07?

[Dick Allen]

This has been covered numerous times in this thread.  Vazquez is owed $8.5 million in 2006 and $9.5 million in 2007 because the Yankees are picking up $3 million per year of his contract.  That's a total of $18 million over 2 seasons that Vazquez is owed, not $24 million.

The Yankees are paying the Diamondbacks $3 million a year to cover it. The Diamondbacks are on record, according to Gammons, as saying they will not move that $3 million a year. In other words, you trade for Vazquez, you would be responsible for the entire contract. The D-Backs are keeping the $3 million a year the Yankees are sending them.

[NorthSideSox72]

if JG has said something to the Sox that makes it clear he won't come back for any reasonable salary after 2006, then I'm all for shopping him around.

 

But not for this deal. Vazquez is, at best, similar in pitching skills to Garland. But, Vazquez is going to cost us $11.5M and $12.5M for the next two years (ARZ has said they won't pick up cash). That's ridiculous money, and we could probably convince JG for that amount, so why trade?

 

And, what's not being mentioned much by people here is that this guy is giving every indication of being a head case. He had a sub-par season when he appeared to be reaching his prime, he requests a trade then says he didn't but he obviously does, says he wants to be on the east coast to be closer to PR (lots of places closer to PR than, say, Boston or NY, so why East Coast?), etc. This guy does not put out a good vibe to me.

 

In short, if we do it, we'd better get some significant cash and/or prospects to go with him, given the downgrade in value and clubhouse presence (and possibly performance) we'd have to take.

[fathom]

This trade is too much IMO.  I don't see this making us better.  I'm starting to think that if we do too much more this offseason, we're just making ourselves worse.  It kind of reminds me of the Yankees after they won their WS's.  Change is necessary, but not this much.

 

Especially as Garland seemed to step up as one of the leaders of the team. He showed a ton of maturity on and off the field last season.

[Chisoxfn]

This has been covered numerous times in this thread.  Vazquez is owed $8.5 million in 2006 and $9.5 million in 2007 because the Yankees are picking up $3 million per year of his contract.  That's a total of $18 million over 2 seasons that Vazquez is owed, not $24 million.

No no no. The Yanks sent cash to the dbacks. That meant the Dbacks were paying that, but the Dbacks don't have to send that cash (that the Dbacks are receiving) to the Yanks. They can keep it.

[SSH2005]

Well, if that's true who the hell would want Vazquez at $24 million for 2 years? They would almost have to include cash to deal him. I just assumed that the Diamondbacks would be including the $6 million from the Yankees in any trade.

Edited December 13, 2005 by SSH2005

[Guest JimH]

if JG has said something to the Sox that makes it clear he won't come back for any reasonable salary after 2006, then I'm all for shopping him around.

 

But not for this deal.  Vazquez is, at best, similar in pitching skills to Garland.  But, Vazquez is going to cost us $11.5M and $12.5M for the next two years (ARZ has said they won't pick up cash).  That's ridiculous money, and we could probably convince JG for that amount, so why trade?

 

And, what's not being mentioned much by people here is that this guy is giving every indication of being a head case.  He had a sub-par season when he appeared to be reaching his prime, he requests a trade then says he didn't but he obviously does, says he wants to be on the east coast to be closer to PR (lots of places closer to PR than, say, Boston or NY, so why East Coast?), etc.  This guy does not put out a good vibe to me.

 

In short, if we do it, we'd better get some significant cash and/or prospects to go with him, given the downgrade in value and clubhouse presence (and possibly performance) we'd have to take.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

These are very valid concerns.

 

If the Sox are interested, it's because of the Guillen Factor. Did he not work with Vazquez in Montreal? Not sure.

 

On the money thing, the Dbacks are in no position to pick up money and I highly doubt they will.

 

The flip side is, I'm not so sure why so many here are that worried about White Sox payroll. They just won the World Series, that's serious incoming $$. Maybe it's as simple as preferring some level of cost certainty for the next two years, albeit at a pricey level.

[Chisoxfn]

It could be Vazquez is owed $24M over the next two years though couldn't it?  Do the Dbacks absolutely have to forfeit that $3M from the Yankees for '06 and '07?

No, they don't. Thats why I don't see the logic in this. If were going to pay him 12 mill, no one is going to tell me that Garland wouldn't take a 3yr 30 offer or even a 3yr 30 with a 4th year option (that would have a buyout at 3 mill and a yearly price of 12 mill or so). It would make sense simply because Garland would be getting a few million more in his 1st two years and would be assured a 3yr 33 mill deal.

 

Sure its paying a lot per year, but if your going to pay 12 mill a year or so, I'd much rather be paying Garland.

 

Now if the Sox were getting something else in return and some cash, than I could see it. Lets say they do the deal straight up and end up getting Vazquez at around 7.5 mill the next two years, well than its not as bad (especially if Kenny was basically told straight up that Jon won't be back).

 

However, I have more faith in Jon being good than Vazquez. Javier has a good arm and good stuff, but Garland has been the one getting better while Vazquez has regressed the past two years.

[SSH2005]

http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/NASApp...t=.jsp&c_id=ari

Vazquez is owed $24 million over the next two seasons, and some have speculated that part of the holdup is that teams that are interested want the Diamondbacks to pick up part of that salary. Byrnes said during the Winter Meetings that the D-Backs were not going to do that, calling it a "non-starter" in talks.

You can keep him at that outrageous price.

[NorthSideSox72]

Another possibility to consider:

 

This may be a rumor being pushed around the table as a subtle manipulation in the contract negotiations. KW is a pretty savvy guy. This message says "we could replace you if we needed to". And remember, the Sox have very rarely had to go to the arbitration table.

 

Smells a little like a red herring to me.

[Guest JimH]

Jason, maybe there's something about Garland the White Sox don't like?

 

As an example, perhaps telling them he is absolutely positively hell bent on exploring free agency?

 

Maybe they know, as another example, he's got his heart set on the west?

 

Just speculating.

 

Personally I would rather they land a comparable pitcher, locked in for two years, because they also have Garcia and Buehrle locked in. They have a 3 year window here to be really, really good. Thome is locked in thru 2008. Konerko, Uribe are locked in. Iguchi thru 2007. Young OF's on the way, two of them potentially impact players. They will definitely try to lock up Pierzynski too IMO.

 

If this move is made, it's all about cost certainty and playing to their window of being very strong contenders.

 

Williams always operates this way, he balances current needs with 2-3 years down the line.

[Dick Allen]

http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/NASApp...t=.jsp&c_id=ari

You can keep him at that outrageous price.

What their stance does is basically makes it almost impossible to trade him. They are holding the cards. They wait until March, and either Vazquez recinds his trade request or he becomes a free agent who is going to have to take a pretty significant pay cut, and the D-Backs get him off the books and still have a total of $6 million coming from the Yankees. Maybe the opportunity to land a Garland or Contreras will make them change their minds about picking up at least some of the salary.

[3E8]

I'd really like to know the specifics of the 3-year deal Garland turned down to put this into a better perspective.

[SSH2005]

I'd rather have Garland for one year at his arbitration price than Vazquez for two years and $24 million. Garland leaving would suck but we would have that money freed up for 2007.

 

I'd really like to know the specifics of the 3-year deal Garland turned down to put this into a better perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, no one reported any figures. Just that it was a 3-year contract offer.

Edited December 13, 2005 by SSH2005

[GreatScott82]

I'll pass on this trade. I'll take my chances on having Garland and Contreras in our rotation next year and losing 1 of them after next season via free agency. I can see Contreras re-signing to us while Garland leaving after '06. Well have you guys looked at the free agent market in '06? Its pretty deep pitching wise, I would like to see Mulder make his way to South side in replace of Garland. Then we can have a lefty, righty, lefty, righty, righty setup in our rotation.

I expect to see this:

2006 Rotation- Buerhle, Contreras, Garland, Garcia, McCarthy

2007 Rotation- Buerhle, Contreras, Mulder (or someone else), Garcia, McCarthy

[fathom]

Consensus was that it was 3/24 for Garland. And yes, this trade would suck, as 2/24 for Vazquez would be a bad trade.

[Dick Allen]

If the White Sox are willing to pay Javier Vazquez $24 million for 2 years, there has to be better options out there for that kind of money.

[SSH2005]

Consensus was that it was 3/24 for Garland.  And yes, this trade would suck, as 2/24 for Vazquez would be a bad trade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where did you hear that? Just curious.

[GreatScott82]

^^^

 

ditto. keep garland for this year and look to replace him after the season is over. we don't need to do this trade. it makes no sense financially

[Dick Allen]

If the Garland offer was 3/$24 million, I would have turned it down also if I were him.

[fathom]

Where did you hear that?  Just curious.

 

Besides for what was speculated by the Chicago media, those were the approximate figures that were rumored at the Winter Meetings.

[Guest JimH]

If the Garland offer was 3/$24 million, I would have turned it down also if I were him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right, agreed.

 

This is how the White Sox operate. They want cost certainty.

[SSH2005]

Besides for what was speculated by the Chicago media, those were the approximate figures that were rumored at the Winter Meetings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, all I heard on The Snore was that they offered him a 3-year contract.

[fathom]

Thanks, all I heard on The Snore was that they offered him a 3-year contract.

 

For all I know, it might have been the same source relaying that information to everyone.

[southsideirish71]

How much does everyone think that Garland is going to get on the FA market next year. I am thinking a whole lot. Dogs like Burnett are getting 5 year deals. Millwood probably will get a 4 year deal at a rediculous rate. These are pitchers who have had injuries. Now we have Jon Garland who is 1.) young 2.) sinkerballer 3.) Playoff proven. How much is he going to get on the open market.

 

Konerko's heart was with the sox, he stated he wanted to go through the FA process but he wanted to resign here. Garland is a different story. Its cha-ching time. I can see some team giving him a 5 year deal. Now do you really think that the whitesox will match a 5 year deal. Is Garlands heart with this team through and through.

 

 

I say you get Vasquez for a few years, you keep the core of the team together and you have 5 good pitchers on this team.

 

Remember in the end we are trying to build this like the Braves. You lose parts but not the whole.