Sox Lockup Vazquez to Contract Ext.

[Friend of Nordhagen]

I am as big of a brandon supporter as you will find on the site. And I have a ton of autographed stuff from him, and was hoping that he would be here for a while.

The Buerhle situation probably did more to get this trade going than anything Bmac did. If you look at Danks, what does he remind you of. A slightly harder throwing Buerhle with a better curveball. Danks has been targetted for a few reasons. He is young/cheap/left handed.

 

The way a lot of teams get their young starters into the game is to use them in relief. Buerhle, Liriano, Santana, Papleboner, etc. These are all starters, or would be starters that all started in the relief role. These are all examples of guys who started their whole life, and had to adjust to warming up quick and throwing strikes out of the pen. It helps them work on a limited number of pitches, get some experience and work in game situations with a bit of pressure. Bmac didnt do to well in this. He missed in the strikezone, and then had to come over the plate with a fastball late in the count. Bmac uses his changeup as a pace changer to keep people off of his fastball. He had a hard time getting command of that at times, and the scouting report on Bmac is to lay off the curve, because he has a hard time throwing it for strikes. So basically you have eliminated 2 of his 3 pitches and you sit on the fastball.

 

McCarthy is gone because most likely he failed the litmus test, and because we could get Danks who is lefty and projects with similiar stuff.

 

You could be right. But that's a litmus that Jon Garland failed, too. He was a decidedly so-so reliever, and he turned out fine. Plus, Buehrle hadn't started in the majors when they dropped him in the bullpen in 2000. McCarthy, on the other hand, had started -- under pressure -- and performed. That's the part that irritates me. In 5 starts that September, I thought McCarthy showed more composure and savvy than Vazquez did all of last year. In fact, if McCarthy resembled anyone that year, it was Buehrle.

 

It could be that Danks becomes like Buehrle. But that's my point. When the trade was made, Williams made it sound like we were getting a young Mark Langston, not a younger Mark Buerhle.

[elrockinMT]

I think it shows that Sox management is willing to pay money to keep its palyers. The question is how much that player wants from the team? Hopefully we wil see another few signings.

[RockRaines]

We'll see, Rock. Last I saw was that his Double-A pitching coach said he got it up there between 88-90.

Thats not the scouting report on him. If you have watched him this spring though, its hard not to get excited about the guy.

[Frankensteiner]

For those expecting a breakout season from Vazquez, let me remind you he's now had ERA of 4.91, 4.42 (NL), and 4.84 the last 3 seasons. Really, based upon the last 3 seasons, which are much more relavent in any sort of player comparison, one could argue that Ted Lilly is a better pitcher than Vazquez.

 

Expecting Vazquez to be one of Coop's reclamation projects is wishful thinking, IMO. At this point, what you see is likely what you get.

 

So Mr GM. What would you have done. Extend Buerhle for about 5 years at a good clip. Or trot Danks out next year, then Gio and Broadway out in 09. And had the rotation filled with kids and no vets outside of Contreras who is 60.

 

I really don't think finding a replacement for Vazquez would have been all that hard. The free agent market is overflooded with 3rd-4th starters every single year (i.e. Suppan, Meche, Lilly, etc.). So you can always overpay for mediocre pitching.

[scotty22hotty]

11 million a year for a .500 pitcher

Buehrle must be worth 17 million a year....

 

opps

Edited March 7, 2007 by scotty22hotty

[southsideirish71]

For those expecting a breakout season from Vazquez, let me remind you he's now had ERA of 4.91, 4.42 (NL), and 4.84 the last 3 seasons. Really, based upon the last 3 seasons, which are much more relavent in any sort of player comparison, one could argue that Ted Lilly is a better pitcher than Vazquez.

 

Expecting Vazquez to be one of Coop's reclamation projects is wishful thinking, IMO. At this point, what you see is likely what you get.

I really don't think finding a replacement for Vazquez would have been all that hard. The free agent market is overflooded with 3rd-4th starters every single year (i.e. Suppan, Meche, Lilly, etc.). So you can always overpay for mediocre pitching.

 

 

This medicore pitcher strikes out a lot of batters, while the group you added happen to get the majority of their outs via the ball put in play. Also Vazquez is a stud through 5 innings and then falls apart. One could use a bullpen to leverage that, if Ozzie can get over the use of the pen. I guess all "medicore" pitchers are the same. I would rather have Vazquez and the promise of what could be, instead of a Lilly a Marquis or a Suppan. I would not dish out 5 years for Meche.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 07:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Javier's games in which he got massive run support:

 

June 25th against Houston. 10-9 loss (ND) . 9 earned runs and 10 hits in 6 innings pitched. Iguchi almost wins it by himself despite that.

 

 

July 30th at Baltimore. 8-7 loss (ND) . Sox break a 2 all tie to take a 4-2 lead in the top of the 6th inning, Baltimore takes a 5-4 lead in the bottom half because Vaz implodes.

 

So there were 5 games in which he got massive run support, and the team goes 2-3.

 

You're kidding about the Astros game right? Almost all those runs came in the 9th well after Javy left. If the Sox scored those runs earlier in the game and Vazquez blew it, you'd have a better point.

 

Jenks blew that Baltimore game BTW.

 

Vazquez was also screwed of run support in his first start of the season against the Royals 7 IP, 2 ER, 5 H, 2 BB, 7 K's. Sox lose 4-3.

 

Not so even now, is it?

[Frankensteiner]

This medicore pitcher strikes out a lot of batters, while the group you added happen to get the majority of their outs via the ball put in play.

 

So what does that really mean? He strikes out a lot of guys while giving up a lot of runs. Should that make me feel any better? His K/9 was only slightly lower 2 seasons ago. Not like that meant anything going into last season.

 

Also Vazquez is a stud through 5 innings and then falls apart. One could use a bullpen to leverage that, if Ozzie can get over the use of the pen. I guess all "medicore" pitchers are the same. I would rather have Vazquez and the promise of what could be, instead of a Lilly a Marquis or a Suppan. I would not dish out 5 years for Meche.

 

His peripherals look nice but as I've said earlier, the whole is always less than the sum of his parts. We can cherry pick situations where Vazquez has been good but in the end I think we can all agree Vazquez did not have a good season for the Sox last year. Not all mediocre pitchers are the same. However, their results usually are.

[SoxAce]

God I f***ing love this, but that's more because I'm a big Javier Vazquez fan and one of his rare backers.

[BearSox]

God I f***ing love this, but that's more because I'm a big Javier Vazquez fan and one of his rare backers.

make that two of us... good post!

[effectivelywild]

What I love about this debate is that at first glance it sounds like a classic "stats vs. scouts" debate---"Don't tell me about how good his stuff is or about the adjustments he made last year---what I want is cold hard stats...like....you know....wins and losses..."

Ok, so, yeah, Javy's ERA has been high for a bit now and he's a sub .500 pitcher. You can watch him and know that he has the potential to be much better than that, and his last two months are proof of that.

So, ok, he hasn't proved that he can consistently put it all together and harnass that stuff on a consistent basis at the major league level. Who else are we going to have pitching? Oh, you mean those young guys, the ones that haven't necessarily proven they can be effective at AAA? I don't want our rotation to entirely be centered on them. Yeah, they're cheaper---they're also unproven. If one of them pans out, great, we get a cheap, effective starter. But to expect all of them to get the job done is, IMO, foolhardy. So what happened today? We signed a guy who throws a lot of innings per year who has the potential to be very good for a shortish contract at less than the current market would dictate. And this is a bad thing?

 

Maybe it's just unwarranted optimism on my part, but I'm hoping that what he showed us his last two months is indicative of what he can do---after all, if we can hope for our pitching coach to work magic with all our new young arms, can't we believe he could also help our other pitchers iron out some kinks?---and that he has a great year.

[Friend of Nordhagen]

Thats not the scouting report on him. If you have watched him this spring though, its hard not to get excited about the guy.

 

I watched him Sunday. He looked good. But he didn't look overpowering, or even like he had plus-plus stuff. I thought that's what we traded for.

[RockRaines]

I watched him Sunday. He looked good. But he didn't look overpowering, or even like he had plus-plus stuff. I thought that's what we traded for.

I disagree, his new pitch, the change, looked MLB caliber to me. His curve is his plus pitch and he didnt feature it much and its also hard to snap those off in AZ.

[BearSox]

I disagree, his new pitch, the change, looked MLB caliber to me. His curve is his plus pitch and he didnt feature it much and its also hard to snap those off in AZ.

Some actually think that his change is now his best pitch. He has an average fastball, a plus curve, and a plus change, and that is alI a pitcher needs to be successful in the MLB. think he will be a stud

[Vance Law]

The huge part of the risk is that the guy has great peripherals but has not gotten the job f***ing done for an entire season in the AL, and that he's coming off of a season with a ton of ups and downs.

 

You know who hasn't gotten anything done for any season ever? Guys who are getting $11 million per for 5 years.

 

A league average starter with no injury history who's pretty much a lock to pitch 200 innings is easily getting a hell of a lot more than $34.5 over 3 years on the free agent market, and Vazquez has the potential (has done it in the past) and the stuff to be a lot better than average. We locked him up now after a not-so-hot year which I bet will be his worst year with the Sox.

[badatbest]

You know who hasn't gotten anything done for any season ever? Guys who are getting $11 million per for 5 years.

 

A league average starter with no injury history who's pretty much a lock to pitch 200 innings is easily getting a hell of a lot more than $34.5 over 3 years on the free agent market, and Vazquez has the potential (has done it in the past) and the stuff to be a lot better than average. We locked him up now after a not-so-hot year which I bet will be his worst year with the Sox.

 

 

Exactly.

[TheBigHurt]

So what about Buerhle?

[Hideaway Lights]

1998 - Vazquez 5-15 (.250), Montreal Expos 65-97 (.401)

2002 - Vazquez 10-13 (.434), Montreal Expos 83-79 (.512)

2004 - Vazquez 14-10 (.583), New York Yankees 101-61 (.623)

2005 - Vazquez 11-15 (.423), Arizona Diamondbacks 77-85 (.475)

2006 - Vazquez 11-12 (.478), Chicago White Sox 90-72 (.556)

 

Hmm, four of the last five years the teams would've seemingly been better off without Vazquez. And 5 of the 9 years he's been in the big leagues overall.

 

Although I'm sure the apologists will have an explanation for all those years...like maybe it's all one big coincidence.

 

I'm sure that's what it is, guys, right?

 

Also Carmen DeFalco made two really good points on the air tonight

 

 

the first was...how do the White Sox b**** and complain all offseason how they're not going to get caught up in this over-inflated market and then pay a guy based on that overinflated market value????

 

the second was...how do the White Sox now say to their fans well, we gave Vazquez this 34 million, but we aren't going to offer Buehrle 4 years 60 million or 5 years 75 million? You're going to give a mediocre pitcher "fair market value" but not a high second tier pitcher the same consideration?

[hi8is]

------------Ryan Sweeney > Brian Anderson AND Chris Young------------

BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

sure

 

 

ill go on record as saying these two things:

1) sweeney will never be close to being as good as chris young will be

and

2) we will all be very very happy about vazquez and the managements decision to sign him to an extension.

[Hideaway Lights]

Because Vazquez had a much better season than Buehrle....

 

As it stands right now, I am very happy the Sox don't have Mark locked up.

 

how the hell is 11-12, 4.84 much better than 12-13, 4.99????

[SoxAce]

ill go on record as saying these two things:

1) sweeney will never be close to being as good as chris young will be

 

I'm gonna hold you to that one because that remains to be seen. I never liked Chris Young when he was here so I'm not that high on him, but potential wise both are capable power wise, Chris more of a basestealer 40/40 guy and Sweeney more of a .300 contact hitter. Chris will always be a better defensive player even though Sweeney is pretty above average himself and probably won't play center. But we'll see, and I wouldn't laugh at all.

Edited March 7, 2007 by SoxAce

[TheBigHurt]

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 01:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because Vazquez had a much better season than Buehrle....

 

As it stands right now, I am very happy the Sox don't have Mark locked up.

 

Mark had a bad season. He's proved himself over a NUMBER of seasons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Javier has NOT.

[TheBigHurt]

So you'd rather have a starter with one (correct me if I'm wrong) great season and plenty of bad ones than the exact opposite?

[Jordan4life_2007]

Mark had a bad season. He's proved himself over a NUMBER of seasons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Javier has NOT.

 

Mark has been brilliant since he's been with us. But what happened in the second-half last year can't be ignored, no matter what he's done in the past. He wasn't just bad. Bad is being wayyyyy too kind. I can't even think of the right word to describe how horrible Mark was from July 2nd through the end of the season. Can he bounce back? Of course. I think he will. But all the concerns regarding Mark are legitimate until he shows last year's second-half was just a terrible fluke.

[TheBigHurt]

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 01:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not really sure where I said I didn't want Mark. However Hideaway brought up the point, if Kenny can give Vazquez a new deal, why not Mark. My point is, why would any GM rush to give a new deal to a pitcher coming off a 2nd half that was the worst in baseball?

 

Point taken. But I think Javier is much more a risk to be signed than Buerhle, based on what I said. Buerhle had a bad year, but overall he's been consistent, whereas Javier has not, unless you mean consistently dissapointing.