PDA

View Full Version : What would it take to get Vazquez?


gogosoxgogo
01-16-2003, 11:19 PM
If the Sox could add a quality 3rd starter and push Garland back to the #4 position, the Sox would have among the best staffs in baseball. My question is what it would take to get Vazquez on the South side next season. How about something along the lines of Wright, Stewart, Hummel, and maybe another one of our non-top prospects. We would easily get the advantage if this trade went through. Stewart is overrated who got wins last year, but didn't have the ERA to back it up. Trade him now while he is considered one of our top prospects, which I don't believe he is. Hummel is nothing, we have enough young utility types. He wouldn't be anything in the majors anyway. Wright is the biggest loss here, and I wouldn't miss him. I see much more promise in Garland than I see in Wright. The guy just can't escape the 5-run-inning. Plus, we leave one rotation spot open for Rauch at the bottom, who we're all expecting big things from.

delben91
01-16-2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Hummel is nothing, we have enough young utility types. He wouldn't be anything in the majors anyway. Wright is the biggest loss here, and I wouldn't miss him.

I don't know about that. I've heard lots of good things about hummel. Both before last season, and also of late in winter ball. Word on him was good defense, very good arm, plate discipline, and a line drive hitter with a smooth, short swing that he just lost last season for reasons relatively unknown. However, he just may have rediscovered it. Far too soon to give up on him.

Also, seems a bit early to give up on a 24 year old Wright who's only had one year in the majors and had his share of dominant starts to go with the horrible ones. And those horrible ones were a lot less frequent after July of last season.

I'm not saying I wouldn't love to get Vazquez, but I don't think giving up Hummel and Wright would be giving up "nothing".

gogosoxgogo
01-16-2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by delben91
I don't know about that. I've heard lots of good things about hummel. Both before last season, and also of late in winter ball. Word on him was good defense, very good arm, plate discipline, and a line drive hitter with a smooth, short swing that he just lost last season for reasons relatively unknown. However, he just may have rediscovered it. Far too soon to give up on him.

Also, seems a bit early to give up on a 24 year old Wright who's only had one year in the majors and had his share of dominant starts to go with the horrible ones. And those horrible ones were a lot less frequent after July of last season.

I'm not saying I wouldn't love to get Vazquez, but I don't think giving up Hummel and Wright would be giving up "nothing".

Yeah, you're correct there, I didn't mean that it would be 'nothing'. But I do think that we would come out on top of my proposed deal. Also, how about throwing in Josh Paul? That would be addition by subtraction as it opens up a roster spot. It would make sense for them, too as they probably want to get rid of Barret and his contract.

Daver
01-16-2003, 11:37 PM
Wright throws five pitches for strikes,and you want to write him off? Sorry but I can't buy that logic.

gogosoxgogo
01-16-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by daver
Wright throws five pitches for strikes,and you want to write him off? Sorry but I can't buy that logic.

And how many does he throw for balls? What I'm saying is that I'd rather take Vazquez over him. Wright just hasn't shown me enough yet. To get talent, we have to give talent, and I'd rather give Wright than Garland.

Daver
01-16-2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
And how many does he throw for balls? What I'm saying is that I'd rather take Vazquez over him. Wright just hasn't shown me enough yet. To get talent, we have to give talent, and I'd rather give Wright than Garland.

Danny Wright under Don Cooper could turn into a dominating pitcher,not that I am saying he will,but the talent is there,do you give that up for a pitcher that may prove in the long run to be less than that?I would rather keep the talent that is signed at this point.



But then again,what the hell do I know? ©

gogosoxgogo
01-16-2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by daver
Danny Wright under Don Cooper could turn into a dominating pitcher,not that I am saying he will,but the talent is there,do you give that up for a pitcher that may prove in the long run to be less than that?I would rather keep the talent that is signed at this point.

exactly, could. I saw his numbers under Don Cooper. Yes, more impressive than under Nardi, but who's number's aren't? But it's still a big question mark. I just don't see him more than 1 14 game winner with an ERA in the high fours. Vazquez would be much more than that and has already proven that he CAN do it in the majors.

MaggPipes
01-17-2003, 12:04 AM
I say give Wright ATLEAST to the all-star break and if he can't do it MAYBE go after someone else....give the kid a chance.....don't give up on him like we gave up on Kip Wells.....

Tragg
01-17-2003, 12:08 AM
We got the pitcher we wanted. Vasquez is a work in process himself. FWIW, I like Wright more than Garland or Rausch or pretty much any pitcher we have this side of MB.

bc2k
01-17-2003, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Wright just hasn't shown me enough yet. To get talent, we have to give talent, and I'd rather give Wright than Garland.

You might want to go go rephrase those two sentences. Don't say that Wright hasn't shown enough and then say how talented he is.

Everyone has this chub for Vazquez. I've got two words for Vazquez: Le sucer! Where the hell is the Degeneration X tag?

OfficerKarkovice
01-17-2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by daver
Wright throws five pitches for strikes,and you want to write him off? Sorry but I can't buy that logic.

I'm not sure I've ever seen Wright throw five different pitches...much less all of them for strikes.

hold2dibber
01-17-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
If the Sox could add a quality 3rd starter and push Garland back to the #4 position, the Sox would have among the best staffs in baseball. My question is what it would take to get Vazquez on the South side next season. How about something along the lines of Wright, Stewart, Hummel, and maybe another one of our non-top prospects. We would easily get the advantage if this trade went through. Stewart is overrated who got wins last year, but didn't have the ERA to back it up. Trade him now while he is considered one of our top prospects, which I don't believe he is. Hummel is nothing, we have enough young utility types. He wouldn't be anything in the majors anyway. Wright is the biggest loss here, and I wouldn't miss him. I see much more promise in Garland than I see in Wright. The guy just can't escape the 5-run-inning. Plus, we leave one rotation spot open for Rauch at the bottom, who we're all expecting big things from.

I was more impressed with Wright last season than with Garland. Wright's problem was the big inning, and that seems to me to be a psychological problem that I think will be fixed under Cooper's watch.

But to your original question, I would love to have Vazquez, but I think the only way Montreal is going to deal him is if somebody takes Tatis' contract, too. And after having acquired the Colon salary, there's no way the Sox will do that.