2nd Guessing the Vazquez Trade

[chitownsportsfan]

The Hard Ball Times lauds Young for his increasing contact rate, flawless CF defense, and steady power and patience at the plate. They argue as a premium CF, he might be baseball's most valuable prospect.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...at-chris-young/

 

Those projections for 2007 hurt to look at...250/330/500 with 21SB

[Gregory Pratt]

The Hard Ball Times lauds Young for his increasing contact rate, flawless CF defense, and steady power and patience at the plate. They argue as a premium CF, he might be baseball's most valuable prospect.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...at-chris-young/

 

Those projections for 2007 hurt to look at...250/330/500 with 21SB

 

Brian Anderson will hit at least .260 with some doubles. We got the better end of the bargain.

 

(I do wish we had Young, but I don't necessarily think it was a BAD deal for us, either. Depends on what happens this offseason, but Javier deserved far more wins down the stretch than he got. That Boston game he threw was when I knew the season was over.)

[elrockinMT]

Vazquez has the potential to win 20 games. I don't see that in any AAA Sox prospect at this time. Plus we have some real potential young OF prospects ready to move up. Young will no doubt be a good player though.

[BobDylan]

Vazquez has the potential to win 20 games. I don't see that in any AAA Sox prospect at this time. Plus we have some real potential young OF prospects ready to move up. Young will no doubt be a good player though.

 

Vazquez has also proved that he can't win 20 games regardless of how good his stuff is. He has the mental capacity of a little leaguer. The guy just flat out can't pitch with pressure.

[Soxbadger]

He cant pitch with pressure, yet he was one of the Sox best pitchers after the All-Star break.

 

Seems that those statements dont add up.

[striker]

Javier Vazquez does have good stuff and is also a head case. But just like most of our pitchers, if you take away 2 or 3 bad starts his numbers look alot better.

[Kalapse]

Why would anyone have a problem with Carlos Vasquez? The guy was a throw-in, it's a little early to be second guessing a trade that was made only a few weeks ago.

[Balta1701]

Why would anyone have a problem with Carlos Vasquez? The guy was a throw-in, it's a little early to be second guessing a trade that was made only a few weeks ago.

Because he has a steroid suspension on his record.

[Flash Tizzle]

UH OH. Looks like we'll no longer have the argument of, "well, Williams trades prospects, but how often do any of them turn into quality players?

 

I can only assume whichever starter delt will give us a prospect comparable to Chris Young.........right?

 

If you're one who believes Vazquez was a good move, then you must admit keeping the rotation completely entact was a poor decision. It would have made perfect sense, once Vazquez was on our ballclub, to insert McCarthy then trade a starting pitcher for a collection of bullpen arms/SP prospects. This would have solved our bulpen woes, but again, who knows if it would have made a difference? Perhaps Thornton is never saught. I didn't have forsight into the future, obviously, but I knew full well it wasn't smart placing a starting pitcher such as McCarthy into the bullpen.

 

This deal hurts even more when you look at flailing Brian Anderson adjust to major league pitching. It's embarrassing. And there isn't exactly any OF prospects aside from Sweeney, whose hardly on Young's level, available to contribute.

 

We're going to have Vazquez for, what, two more seasons? Young would have been a welcomed addition in CF for the next 6+ years.

 

Lesson learned for Williams. You give up quality prospects, you better damn well hope the player obtained is more reliable than Javier Vazquez. And, preferably, around for more than three seasons.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[daa84]

i'm not sure how many of you are stat guys or not...and whether or not you believe in looking at a pitchers peripherals to predict how good he will be....but vazquez was 4th in the league in Ks with a comparable walk rate to the rest of the top 5 in Ks (with the exception of santana....who is a freak) and his HRs allowed were way down from previous years...even his hits (which most sabermetric guys say the pitcher doesnt control) were not overly high....essentially what i am saying is that javier vazquez was way better than his ERA suggested last year, and if he duplicates those peripherals this year, id be willing to bet his ERA is no higher than 4.10....

 

 

that said i understand alot of people arent stats guys and simply think that vazquez is mentally not up to par...while i agree he may not have the makeup of some of our other pitchers...i for one am still a vazquez supporter based on his stats and how i think he ought to fair next year

[ptatc]

UH OH. Looks like we'll no longer have the argument of, "well, Williams trades prospects, but how often do any of them turn into quality players?

 

I can only assume whichever starter delt will give us a prospect comparable to Chris Young.........right?

 

It would have made perfect sense, once Vazquez was on our ballclub, to insert McCarthy then trade a starting pitcher for a collection of bullpen arms/SP prospects. This would have solved our bulpen woes, but again, who knows if it would have made a difference? Perhaps Thornton is never saught. I didn't have forsight into the future, obviously, but I knew full well it wasn't smart placing a starting pitcher such as McCarthy into the bullpen.

 

This deal hurts even more when you look at flailing Brian Anderson adjust to major league pitching. It's embarrassing. And there isn't exactly any OF prospects aside from Sweeney, whose hardly on Young's level, available to contribute.

 

We're going to have Vazquez for, what, two more seasons? Young would have been a welcomed addition in CF for the next 6+ years.

 

Lesson learned for Williams. You give up quality prospects, you better damn well hope they player obtained is more reliable than Javier Vazquez. And, preferably, around for more than three seasons.

 

You shouldn't evaluate the trade after one year. I think you are giving up on Anderson too soon and giving Young All -Star status too soon. Let's see how Young does in his first years in the league and compare them to Anderson's. I still think prior to last year getting Vazquez made sense to win in the short term. Young still hasn't made the jump to big league regular. He wouldn't have helped us last year.

[daa84]

UH OH. Looks like we'll no longer have the argument of, "well, Williams trades prospects, but how often do any of them turn into quality players?

 

I can only assume whichever starter delt will give us a prospect comparable to Chris Young.........right?

 

It would have made perfect sense, once Vazquez was on our ballclub, to insert McCarthy then trade a starting pitcher for a collection of bullpen arms/SP prospects. This would have solved our bulpen woes, but again, who knows if it would have made a difference? Perhaps Thornton is never saught. I didn't have forsight into the future, obviously, but I knew full well it wasn't smart placing a starting pitcher such as McCarthy into the bullpen.

 

This deal hurts even more when you look at flailing Brian Anderson adjust to major league pitching. It's embarrassing. And there isn't exactly any OF prospects aside from Sweeney, whose hardly on Young's level, available to contribute.

 

We're going to have Vazquez for, what, two more seasons? Young would have been a welcomed addition in CF for the next 6+ years.

 

Lesson learned for Williams. You give up quality prospects, you better damn well hope they player obtained is more reliable than Javier Vazquez. And, preferably, around for more than three seasons.

 

this is one time williams has been burned...people forget how great of a prospect jeremy reed was when we traded him, the fact is williams has dealt dozens of prospects and fielded a team that won the world series. yes, chris young may bite us in the butt, but for every one trade that bites us like that, there have been many that the prospects havent panned out

[EvilMonkey]

Until he plays, he is just a prospect. When he hits .300, then gloat, or whatever.

Edited November 27, 2006 by EvilMonkey

[NorthSideSox72]

Until he plays, he is just a prospect. When he hits >300, then gloat, or whatever.

I'll second that. And further, just because someone we trade away does well, that doesn't necessarily make it a bad trade. If Vazquez comes back and has a decent year in 2007 as a #2 or #3 starter, for the money... then Young can hit .300 and its still probably a good trade.

[The Critic]

I'll always trade an OF prospect for a decent ML veteran arm.

Pitching is always harder to find than outfielders.

I still believe Vazquez can help the Sox, either in the rotation or as trade bait.

It's hard to say which starter I'd prefer the Sox to trade, but I'd be more than fine with having Vaz in the rotation this season.

If the Sox didn't have six viable rotation candidates, I wouldn't want Vazquez to even be considered for trade, but they do, so someone probably has to go.

[Flash Tizzle]

You shouldn't evaluate the trade after one year. I think you are giving up on Anderson too soon and giving Young All -Star status too soon. Let's see how Young does in his first years in the league and compare them to Anderson's. I still think prior to last year getting Vazquez made sense to win in the short term. Young still hasn't made the jump to big league regular. He wouldn't have helped us last year.

It would have made sense if acquiring Vazquez meant trading another starter --while their value was at it's highest -- for both bullpen help and SP prospects. McCarthy could have then been inserted into the rotation.

 

I never took to the belief often cited that holding McCarthy as insurance in the bullpen was necessary. That, in the event a starter was injured, he would be pitching in the rotation. If worse came to worse and a season ending injury occured to a starter, that's tough luck. You can't reasonably construct every team to have five solid pitchers and fully capable starting pitcher in the bullpen. I believe in maximizing a players effectiveness -- MccArthy in the bullpen doesn't solve that. Haeger would have likely been added midseason, anyways.

 

Far as trading Reed, I'll admit I HATED the trade. Thought Olivo/Reed/Morse was too much for Garcia. Difference is, at that point in 2004, Anderson, Sweeney, Young we're still hopefuls for the future. It was reasonable to conclude atleast one would be a servicable OF. However, now -- in 2006-- with Young gone and Anderson struggling we're left with Sweeney; whom may take several more years to develop as well. Aside from Sweeney, there's little else aside from Podsednik-lite in Owens.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[KevHead0881]

I'll always trade an OF prospect for a decent ML veteran arm.

Pitching is always harder to find than outfielders.

I still believe Vazquez can help the Sox, either in the rotation or as trade bait.

It's hard to say which starter I'd prefer the Sox to trade, but I'd be more than fine with having Vaz in the rotation this season.

If the Sox didn't have six viable rotation candidates, I wouldn't want Vazquez to even be considered for trade, but they do, so someone probably has to go.

 

Bingo.

 

When the deal happened, I was more worried about whether we got enough in return than I was about the loss of Young. But as much as I was frustrated with Vazquez last year, he is a decent major league pitcher who stays healthy and has quality stuff. I'm sure there are quite a few teams that wouldn't mind taking him off our hands.

[hitlesswonder]

It was a bad trade. And I think it possibly will be one of Brock-for-Broglio proportions (that's right --I said it -- Chris Young has HOF type talent). Everyone can go ahead and say he's just a prospect, but he is the best position player prospect in baseball.

 

All that being said, KW was sure at least one of the Sox starters would go down, and he thought that getting Vazquez (probably the best SP on the market) would get them back to the playoffs. Even though I thought it was bad trade, I understand that. Unfortunately, no Sox pitcher really went down with an injury, if they were hurt they just pitched through it and sucked for most of the year.

 

Plus, it should be mentioned, last year the Hardball Times thought that Vazquez was primed for a breakout/rebound year based on his peripherals in AZ. They could probably predict the same this year since Vazquez always has great peripherals and never actually pitches well.

 

Anyway, it was terrible trade. But other teams have made them too (Boston traded Bagwell for 22 innings of Larry Andersen I think). The important thing is for KW to make the right decision now. Can they somehow get Vazquez to pitch well for two years, or are they better off trying to flip him for Lastings Milledge and hoping that Milledge turns out to be half the player that Chris Young will be. I'm guessing the latter is the better option.

[NorthSideSox72]

It was a bad trade. And I think it possibly will be one of Brock-for-Broglio proportions (that's right --I said it -- Chris Young has HOF type talent). Everyone can go ahead and say he's just a prospect, but he is the best position player prospect in baseball.

 

All that being said, KW was sure at least one of the Sox starters would go down, and he thought that getting Vazquez (probably the best SP on the market) would get them back to the playoffs. Even though I thought it was bad trade, I understand that. Unfortunately, no Sox pitcher really went down with an injury, if they were hurt they just pitched through it and sucked for most of the year.

 

Plus, it should be mentioned, last year the Hardball Times thought that Vazquez was primed for a breakout/rebound year based on his peripherals in AZ. They could probably predict the same this year since Vazquez always has great peripherals and never actually pitches well.

 

Anyway, it was terrible trade. But other teams have made them too (Boston traded Bagwell for 22 innings of Larry Andersen I think). The important thing is for KW to make the right decision now. Can they somehow get Vazquez to pitch well for two years, or are they better off trying to flip him for Lastings Milledge and hoping that Milledge turns out to be half the player that Chris Young will be. I'm guessing the latter is the better option.

 

Brock for Broglio? Hall of Fame? The guys has barely played in the MLB. Let's get back to this in a few years and see where things are at.

[hitlesswonder]

 

Brock for Broglio? Hall of Fame? The guys has barely played in the MLB. Let's get back to this in a few years and see where things are at.

 

Hey, I used italics on "possibly". Predicting a HOF for any player is insane, I agree. But I do think Young is the best position prospect in baseball. And I think Brock for Broglio (young OF for journeyman pitcher) is scarily apt at this point.

 

So sure, Young may flame out. And I actually stiil have some slight hope JV could pitch well next year (he and Garland were the only 2 that looked like they weren't hurt to me last year).

 

My point really was that it was a bad trade (AZ would not trade Young for a pitcher like Vazquez now -- he's clearly more valuable at this point). How bad remains to be seen, but what's done is done. The Sox just need to make a good decision with Vazquez now. I'll admit I'm not smart enough to be sure what that decision should be.

[witesoxfan]

It was a bad trade. And I think it possibly will be one of Brock-for-Broglio proportions (that's right --I said it -- Chris Young has HOF type talent).

 

.276/.363/.532/.895 in the friggin PCL. Hall of fame talent, are you kidding me? He'll likely be an all-star, but I seriously doubt he has any real chance of being a Hall of Famer.

 

Everyone can go ahead and say he's just a prospect, but he is the best position player prospect in baseball.

 

Is that a joke? Delmon Young, Brandon Wood, Alex Gordon, and Andy Marte mean nothing to you?

 

I'm guessing the latter is the better option.

 

You're guessing it's better, while I know it's the worst. You don't trade Vazquez straight up for Milledge in this market, because that's flat out dumb.

 

It's not like the guy doesn't have stuff. It's a matter of putting it together. Jose Contreras did it, so it is possible.

[chitownsportsfan]

.276/.363/.532/.895 in the friggin PCL. Hall of fame talent, are you kidding me? He'll likely be an all-star, but I seriously doubt he has any real chance of being a Hall of Famer.

 

 

 

Is that a joke? Delmon Young, Brandon Wood, Alex Gordon, and Andy Marte mean nothing to you?

 

 

 

You're guessing it's better, while I know it's the worst. You don't trade Vazquez straight up for Milledge in this market, because that's flat out dumb.

 

It's not like the guy doesn't have stuff. It's a matter of putting it together. Jose Contreras did it, so it is possible.

 

 

The thing about Young is that he's essentially Mike Cameron except with the potential to be better. A gold-glove worthy CF that smacks around 25 homers and gets on base at a decent clip and steals some bases is damn hard to find. Chris Young has the potential to be that player as soon as next year and will probably be a very good players for the next 10 years.

 

I was against the trade at the time and I'm still against it. Young might not be the best pure hitting prospect in all of baseball but as a valuable CF I think he might just be the surest bet for a good career.

[ptatc]

It would have made sense if acquiring Vazquez meant trading another starter --while their value was at it's highest -- for both bullpen help and SP prospects. McCarthy could have then been inserted into the rotation.

 

I never took to the belief often cited that holding McCarthy as insurance in the bullpen was necessary. That, in the event a starter was injured, he would be pitching in the rotation. If worse came to worse and a season ending injury occured to a starter, that's tough luck. You can't reasonably construct every team to have five solid pitchers and fully capable starting pitcher in the bullpen. I believe in maximizing a players effectiveness -- MccArthy in the bullpen doesn't solve that. Haeger would have likely been added midseason, anyways.

 

Far as trading Reed, I'll admit I HATED the trade. Thought Olivo/Reed/Morse was too much for Garcia. Difference is, at that point in 2004, Anderson, Sweeney, Young we're still hopefuls for the future. It was reasonable to conclude atleast one would be a servicable OF. However, now -- in 2006-- with Young gone and Anderson struggling we're left with Sweeney; whom may take several more years to develop as well. Aside from Sweeney, there's little else aside from Podsednik-lite in Owens.

1. I agree about McCarthy. I believe KW and Ozzie didn't think he was quite ready and were easing him into the majors ala Santana. They were hoping he wouldn't be needed.

 

2. Olivo was a good catch no hit catcher, Morse was a 3 time busted steroid offender and Reed was a good OF prospect. Any trade where you can get an established good major league pitcher for a good OF prospect and two at best fringe hitters is a good deal.

 

The team that acquires the most pitching usually gets the better of the deal.

[Rex Hudler]

It was very much a bad trade, regardless of what Javier Vazquez ever does for the Sox or what Chris Young does for the D'backs.

 

The bottom line is you do not trade your best prospect, especially one with an unlimited ceiling, for players that will make you marginally better, at best. I said it the day of the trade and I will say it again.

 

The Sox would have been just as well off keeping El Duque and using the combination of El Duque and McCarthy than acquiring Vazquez. Add a decent bullpen free agent and the team would not have lost a step.

 

Instead, the Sox trade El Duque, keep McCarthy banished to the bullpen, a role he had never played AND trade their best prospect (not to mention a bullpen guy) for a guy who they thought they could "fix".

 

Vazquez will break out at some point in his career and have a career year. But it will be that, a career year, not become the norm. Vazquez has underperformed his talent since the beginning of his career. I applaud the Sox for thinking they can fix him, but you can't take that risk and dump off your best prospect in the process. The only way the trade could be justified is if the Sox had given up on Young. I know for a fact, that was not the case.

[BobDylan]

He cant pitch with pressure, yet he was one of the Sox best pitchers after the All-Star break.

 

Seems that those statements dont add up.

 

Well, I guess, since they were OUT OF IT after the all-star break, I guess that he can pitch WITHOUT pressure.

Edited November 28, 2006 by BobDylan