PDA

View Full Version : Would Damaso for Vazquez be a good trade?


Jurr
12-21-2004, 10:31 AM
I was reading an article in the New York Daily News, and they were talking about the Dodgers, and what they may do after getting Vazquez. Apparently, they are looking to deal Vazquez upon his arrival to L.A. The Sox are still being talked about, and this latest little bit of news surprisingly doesn't talk about Paulie or Garland..it only mentions Damaso. If we traded Damaso plus a prospect or two, would Vazquez be a good signing??

Here was the quote I'm referring to.
"DePodesta also wants to spin Javier Vazquez off in a deal with another club - possibly to the White Sox for a package including lefty reliever Damaso Marte - after acquiring him from the Yankees in the Johnson deal."

mweflen
12-21-2004, 10:34 AM
If it were Damaso for Vazquez straight up, of course a good trade. If it's a "package," well, then it all depends.

Kogs35
12-21-2004, 10:35 AM
I was reading an article in the New York Daily News, and they were talking about the Dodgers, and what they may do after getting Vazquez. Apparently, they are looking to deal Vazquez upon his arrival to L.A. The Sox are still being talked about, and this latest little bit of news surprisingly doesn't talk about Paulie or Garland..it only mentions Damaso. If we traded Damaso plus a prospect or two, would Vazquez be a good signing??

Here was the quote I'm referring to.
"DePodesta also wants to spin Javier Vazquez off in a deal with another club - possibly to the White Sox for a package including lefty reliever Damaso Marte - after acquiring him from the Yankees in the Johnson deal."
the new york media/newspapers are all taboilds.

Jurr
12-21-2004, 10:36 AM
Well, you would have to believe that someone else would be packaged in the trade, such as one of our minor league outfield guys or Wilson Valdez. who knows. Nobody would go for Damaso vs. Vazquez straight up, as nice as that would be for us.

Rocky Soprano
12-21-2004, 10:37 AM
Damaso has been pretty solid for us. When he is on, no one hits him. Our bullpen is finally looking a bit on the strong side. I would hate to weaken our bullpen.

Troupis
12-21-2004, 10:37 AM
Nice spot in the NY Daily News Jurr!

To me it comes down to what we need more...

We have starters who can go deep and don't need as strong of a bullpen (plus we added 2 to it already this offseason); our biggest achilles heel last year - a 5th starter. I say...

GOOD DEAL!

Frater Perdurabo
12-21-2004, 10:38 AM
As Sox fans we have a tendency to over-rate Sox players. IMHO, anytime you can deal a relief pitcher (other than a once-in-a-generation closer like Eckersley, Rivera, etc.) for a legitimate front-line starter, you have to do it. I suppose it would depend on who else the Sox would have to give up, but ask yourself this:

Could Marte be a front-line starter?

Could Vasquez be an elite reliever?

Seems there's no comparison to me.

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 10:39 AM
Well, you would have to believe that someone else would be packaged in the trade, such as one of our minor league outfield guys or Wilson Valdez. who knows. Nobody would go for Damaso vs. Vazquez straight up, as nice as that would be for us.It's not that I'm in love with Marte, but if he goes, that leaves Cotts as the main lefty in the bullpen. Not good. Nothing much on the non-tendered list in the way of LH relievers. If they can come up with a decent replacement for Marte, I'd do it in a second.

OG4LIFE
12-21-2004, 10:40 AM
well, i think at face value its good... but then you gotta remember he's our only lefty setup guy (im not sure cotts is ready, or if i trust him in a late inning role), and one of the best in the league...

if i had to choose though, i'd rather have a front of the rotation starter like vasquez over a lefty setup guy. hopefully LA will also agree to pick up the diff. in salary as well...

gosox41
12-21-2004, 10:40 AM
I was reading an article in the New York Daily News, and they were talking about the Dodgers, and what they may do after getting Vazquez. Apparently, they are looking to deal Vazquez upon his arrival to L.A. The Sox are still being talked about, and this latest little bit of news surprisingly doesn't talk about Paulie or Garland..it only mentions Damaso. If we traded Damaso plus a prospect or two, would Vazquez be a good signing??

Here was the quote I'm referring to.
"DePodesta also wants to spin Javier Vazquez off in a deal with another club - possibly to the White Sox for a package including lefty reliever Damaso Marte - after acquiring him from the Yankees in the Johnson deal."Unfotunately, I think it would take more then Damaso to get Vazquez. Though it would be hard not to do that deal if you're KW.

I never thought I'd say this, but the trade better not include Garland. THe goal is to have 5 starting pitchers that aren't names Grilli or Diaz. Vazquez didn't have a great year last year. Giving up both Garland and Marte for a Garland type pitcher that makes a ton more money is dumb.




Bob

infohawk
12-21-2004, 10:42 AM
If we traded Damaso plus a prospect or two, would Vazquez be a good signing??

It depends on how much of Vazquez's contract is picked up by another team. It wouldn't make sense to trade Marte for Vazquez if the Sox had to pay Vazquez an amount similar to what Clement or some of these other starters are getting. The Sox could have instead spent that money on a free agent starter and kept Marte. If the Sox free up some money for other deals, parting with Marte would make sense.

samram
12-21-2004, 10:44 AM
It's not that I'm in love with Marte, but if he goes, that leaves Cotts as the main lefty in the bullpen. Not good. Nothing much on the non-tendered list in the way of LH relievers. If they can come up with a decent replacement for Marte, I'd do it in a second.
Yeah, I think Steve Kline signed with Baltimore yesterday- he would have been a nice replacement and made a Marte for Vasquez trade far more attractive. Cotts and Kevin Walker make me really confident about the lefties in the pen.

Jjav829
12-21-2004, 10:45 AM
I'd hate to see Marte go, but if he's the only player off the major league roster that we'd lose, KW has to do the deal. Ideally, we'd trade Marte and prospects for Vazquez and then sign Chris Hammond.

mdep524
12-21-2004, 10:45 AM
Marte for Vazquez would be a great trade for the Sox. I'm sure the Dodgers would want significantly more than that though.

I've said this before- Marte is good, but I think his value in a trade might be higher than his value to the team. Plus, he had some disturbing tendencies last year- choking in the clutch, walking batters with the bases loaded.. I'm not sure he's the pressure guy we want him to be. I wouldn't be surprised if he never becomes an elite major league closer.

Jurr
12-21-2004, 10:47 AM
It's not that I'm in love with Marte, but if he goes, that leaves Cotts as the main lefty in the bullpen. Not good. Nothing much on the non-tendered list in the way of LH relievers. If they can come up with a decent replacement for Marte, I'd do it in a second.Well, Cotts, with the experience he got last year, could end up being an absolute stud next year. He's got the tools, and has just needed some experience to get the mental side of the game down. He may break out this year, seriously.

owensmouth
12-21-2004, 10:53 AM
The reason that the Dodgers would make that trade is to shed Vasquez' salary. You think JR is cheap? The Dodgers have dumped a heck of a lot of money because their new owner is so overextended. He's looking to minimize his team's salary, not to improve his team.

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 10:55 AM
Well, Cotts, with the experience he got last year, could end up being an absolute stud next year. He's got the tools, and has just needed some experience to get the mental side of the game down. He may break out this year, seriously.He might. But I'd sure hate to count on it.

Dadawg_77
12-21-2004, 10:59 AM
You know you can improve your team and cut salary at the same time. Just need to get the right group of castoffs and young players.

One would be a fool not to trade a middle reliever for a starter but does adding Vazquez contract make financial sense is the question. If the Dodger eat enough so as not to lock up what the Sox can do in remaining part of this offseason, I would do the deal.

Jurr
12-21-2004, 11:13 AM
He might. But I'd sure hate to count on it.Very well put. I see what you mean.

FJA
12-21-2004, 11:15 AM
According to NBC Sports, Marte is an addition to the previously discussed trade, not an alternative.


The Dodgers are expected to then deal Vazquez to the Chicago White Sox for first baseman Paul Konerko, reliever Damaso Marte and starter Jon Garland, the New York Daily News reported.


LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6720974/)

IMO, that's WAY too much, and it creates more holes than it fills. Horrible trade if it happens.

wdelaney72
12-21-2004, 11:18 AM
Cotts was more effective than Marte last year. Damaso was NOT good last year. I think he'll bounce back, but still, I make this deal in a heartbeat as long as it doesn't involve sending Garland with Marte.

The Dodgers may be looking to dump the salary, however, I'm sure they'd need more than Marte.

Tragg
12-21-2004, 11:18 AM
According to NBC Sports, Marte is an addition to the previously discussed trade, not an alternative.

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6720974/)

IMO, that's WAY too much, and it creates more holes than it fills. Horrible trade if it happens.
Obviously Konerko, Garland and Marte would be a ridiculous trade; Marte solo would be equally ridiculous; we're wearing thin on prospects, so be careful there: some young farm-grown outfield and pitching talent would really help this team; if we could find another MB, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in.

Soxzilla
12-21-2004, 11:25 AM
According to NBC Sports, Marte is an addition to the previously discussed trade, not an alternative.

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6720974/)

IMO, that's WAY too much, and it creates more holes than it fills. Horrible trade if it happens.

Wow ... that would possibly be the worst trade in major league history. They don't seriously believe that ... do they?:?:

Nvm, this is NBC sports we are talking about.

Anyways, back on topic, I'm sure we would package one of our young outfielders, like Sweeney, in order to sweeten the deal. I assume that since we have Pods now, one of those guys has become expendable. (Pods - Rowand - Anderson:o: )

mcfish
12-21-2004, 11:37 AM
Cotts was more effective than Marte last year. Damaso was NOT good last year. I think he'll bounce back, but still, I make this deal in a heartbeat as long as it doesn't involve sending Garland with Marte.

The Dodgers may be looking to dump the salary, however, I'm sure they'd need more than Marte.Cotts was NOT good last year. If we didn't have Jackson and Koch, then I'm sure that everyone here would be horrified by the prospect of another year of Neal Cotts in the bullpen. I know I was horrified every time he came out of the bullpen, especially in important situations.

I'm sorry if that wasn't what you were trying to say, but if we go into the season with Cotts as our only lefty bullpen arm, I think we are in for a serious rude awakening.

Tragg
12-21-2004, 11:37 AM
Anyways, back on topic, I'm sure we would package one of our young outfielders, like Sweeney, in order to sweeten the deal. I assume that since we have Pods now, one of those guys has become expendable. (Pods - Rowand - Anderson:o: )
I would be a lot more comfortable if we knew WHICH ONE was expendable

OurBitchinMinny
12-21-2004, 11:46 AM
a bullpen guy who was up and down last year for a guy who has great stuff and will do well outside of NYC? Yeah id do that in a minute, but we would have to find someone as gullible as we were in the lee trade

34 Inch Stick
12-21-2004, 11:47 AM
I could see a scenario where the Dodgers would do this. It is effectively, the same type of trade the that the Sox did with Lee. They know they are not getting equal value in return but they have their eye on a high priced free agent and need to move salary, while also getting a low priced, quality pitcher.

Either way, if this deal goes through, I think Vazquez will be a White Sox. I am very happy about that.

mdep524
12-21-2004, 11:55 AM
Cotts was NOT good last year. If we didn't have Jackson and Koch, then I'm sure that everyone here would be horrified by the prospect of another year of Neal Cotts in the bullpen. I know I was horrified every time he came out of the bullpen, especially in important situations.

I'm sorry if that wasn't what you were trying to say, but if we go into the season with Cotts as our only lefty bullpen arm, I think we are in for a serious rude awakening.
Cotts wasn't as bad as his numbers showed. His ERA was inflated by two big factors: first, the "Bullpen Day" start he made against Minnestoa early in the season (what a joke, basically setting the guy up to fail), and second, the disasterous tendency for Mike Jackson to let nearly every baserunner he inherited score.

Often Cotts would come in the game, retire a batter or two and then allow one hit or walk. Then Ozzie would go to Jackson, and predictably Jackson would allow the runner to score. Think about i-. that's 2/3 IP, 1 R for Cotts, which works out to an ERA of 13.50. Basically, Ozzie didn't trust Cotts to clean up his messes, so any baserunner he allowed turned into a run thanks to Jackson. That's not fair to Cotts. I think the kid will be better this year.

34 Inch Stick
12-21-2004, 11:57 AM
After reading over the trade a little more closely it would seem obvious that the Dodgers would, in fact, be looking to dump salary. The reason Selig must approve is because more than $1 million is being exchanged. However, it is the Dodgers who are giving up the money, not the Yankees. That is a rarity for a team looking to reduce salary.

On the other hand the Dodgers are getting rid of three starters if they deal with the Sox (Penny, Ishii and Vazquez). Do they have enough starters for a rotation next year if they do this deal?

Jjav829
12-21-2004, 11:58 AM
After reading over the trade a little more closely it would seem obvious that the Dodgers would, in fact, be looking to dump salary. The reason Selig must approve is because more than $1 million is being exchanged. However, it is the Dodgers who are giving up the money, not the Yankees. That is a rarity for a team looking to reduce salary.

On the other hand the Dodgers are getting rid of three starters if they deal with the Sox (Penny, Ishii and Vazquez). Do they have enough starters for a rotation next year if they do this deal?
The Dodgers are getting $6 millon of Vazquez's salary from the Yankees.

Mickster
12-21-2004, 12:05 PM
The Dodgers are getting $6 millon of Vazquez's salary from the Yankees.Sources? Links????

I posted this ARTICLE (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=531&e=1&u=/ap/20041221/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_johnson_megadeal) in a different thread. States that LA is sending cash to NYY to cover part of Kazuhisa Ishii's salary.

Dadawg_77
12-21-2004, 12:07 PM
The Dodgers are getting $6 millon of Vazquez's salary from the Yankees.
ESPN is reporting the Dodgers are paying part of Ishii salary.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1950729

Maybe the Yankees are planing on moving him but need cash for that other team and don't want to pay it themselves.

34 Inch Stick
12-21-2004, 12:08 PM
I saw the same thing on cbssportsline. It does not look like the Yankees are giving up salary.

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 12:09 PM
ESPN is reporting the Dodgers are paying part of Ishii salary.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1950729

Maybe the Yankees are planing on moving him but need cash for that other team and don't want to pay it themselves.This trade has mutated so many times I'm sure half the stories are wrong. They pretty much have to be because they contradict the other half. I don't think I'll believe anything until I hear an official announcement.

Mohoney
12-21-2004, 12:11 PM
Can we get Vazquez WITHOUT giving up Marte?

Can it be Garland, Anderson, and something else?

hold2dibber
12-21-2004, 12:11 PM
On the other hand the Dodgers are getting rid of three starters if they deal with the Sox (Penny, Ishii and Vazquez). Do they have enough starters for a rotation next year if they do this deal?
They're also probably going to lose Odalis Perez to free agency. Other than Weaver, who would they have left in their rotation? I just can't see them dealing Vazquez unless its for cheaper starting pitching (i.e., Garland). And I can't see the Sox agreeing to take on Vazquez unless somebody was paying a large chunk of his salary. I don't think it's going to happen.

Jjav829
12-21-2004, 12:44 PM
Sources? Links????

I posted this ARTICLE (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=531&e=1&u=/ap/20041221/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_johnson_megadeal) in a different thread. States that LA is sending cash to NYY to cover part of Kazuhisa Ishii's salary.

Rotoworld says:

The three-way trade sending Randy Johnson to the Yankees was submitted to commissioner Bud Selig for approval this morning, two people involved in the talks told the AP.
Because the Yankees are sending the Dodgers $6 million to cover Javier Vazquez's contract and the Dodgers are paying $3 million of Kazuhisa Ishii's contract, the deal needs Bud Selig's approval. There shouldn't be any problems.

I've also heard this stated on the radio. I guess we'll find out for sure when it becomes official.

34 Inch Stick
12-21-2004, 01:33 PM
Why wouldn't they just say the Yankees are paying the Dodgers 3 million? Someone must be getting moved to a team that does not want to take on salary.

This effectively reduces Vazquez to 3 million for this year, which coincidently, is about the same amount Garland makes. Hmmm. So if we replace Garland with Vazquez but do not increase salary, we have upgraded our pitching with the ability to still sign an additional starter. As has become popular, here is the staff:

Garcia
Buhrle
Vazquez
Contrearas
???Perez

That looks phenomenal to me. That staff is also locked down through 2006. It would be very expensive next year but is in line if you intend to emphasize pitching and defense.

OEO Magglio
12-21-2004, 01:35 PM
Can we get Vazquez WITHOUT giving up Marte?

Can it be Garland, Anderson, and something else?
Why would you want to do that?? I'd give up Damaso way before I give up Garland, plus the fact you're adding in Anderson and another player, that would be an awful deal, imo.

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 01:38 PM
Why would you want to do that?? I'd give up Damaso way before I give up Garland, plus the fact you're adding in Anderson and another player, that would be an awful deal, imo.The Dodgers have given up pretty much their entire pitching staff. It's a pretty good bet that they're going to want Garland in this trade. SOMEBODY has to stand on the hill and throw the ball.

OEO Magglio
12-21-2004, 01:40 PM
The Dodgers have given up pretty much their entire pitching staff. It's a pretty good bet that they're going to want Garland in this trade. SOMEBODY has to stand on the hill and throw the ball.
Sure but that's from their point of view, I'm saying for the sox point of view why would you want to do that deal??

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 01:44 PM
Sure but that's from their point of view, I'm saying for the sox point of view why would you want to do that deal??Garland for Vazquez? Let me think about it for a while...That's long enough. Where do I sign?

OEO Magglio
12-21-2004, 01:45 PM
Garland for Vazquez? Let me think about it for a while...That's long enough. Where do I sign?
You would do Garland, Anderson, and another player for Vazquez instead of giving up Damaso and prospects for Javy??

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 01:50 PM
You would do Garland, Anderson, and another player for Vazquez instead of giving up Damaso and prospects for Javy??No. I probably wouldn't give up any of the top prospects (McCarthy, Anderson, Sweeney, Fields). But a package of Garland and another prospect would be OK, and LA might go for it. LA is pretty motivated, and I think they HAVE to get a starting pitcher in return. After this trade their rotation consists of Weaver, Dessens and Nomo. And you think WE have pitching problems.

ChiWhiteSox1337
12-21-2004, 01:51 PM
Rotoworld says:

[/color]

I've also heard this stated on the radio. I guess we'll find out for sure when it becomes official. Is it 6 milion per yer or all together? Either way, I think if it's just one sum of $6,000,000 it would bring Vazquez's contract to under $10,000,000 a year. I like the idea of having Vazquez at that price more than Perez at a bit smaller price.

wdelaney72
12-21-2004, 01:53 PM
I was horrified every time he came out of the bullpen, especially in important situations.
I think you are confusing COTTS with KOCH.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, however you are correct in stating we couldn't go into the season with Cotts as our only lefty out of the pen.

I'm not saying Cotts is on his way to Cooperstown, I'm just saying he's not a bad pitcher out of the bullpen. Between Koch and Jackson completely sucking and Marte not living up to his 2003 season, Cotts was the least of our problems.

ChiWhiteSox1337
12-21-2004, 01:54 PM
No. I probably wouldn't give up any of the top prospects (McCarthy, Anderson, Sweeney, Fields). But a package of Garland and another prospect would be OK, and LA might go for it. LA is pretty motivated, and I think they HAVE to get a starting pitcher in return. After this trade their rotation consists of Weaver, Dessens and Nomo. And you think WE have pitching problems. Nomo's an FA and wasn't resigned by the Dodgers after his terrible 2004 season. I think it's safe to say Wilson Alvarez will probably get a spot in the rotation along with one of their top pitching prospects Edwin Jackson, who was pretty shaky at the big league level in 2004.

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 01:56 PM
Nomo's an FA and wasn't resigned by the Dodgers after his terrible 2004 season. I think it's safe to say Wilson Alvarez will probably get a spot in the rotation along with one of their top pitching prospects Edwin Jackson, who was pretty shaky at the big league level in 2004.Mix 'n match. It doesn't much matter. They could go from having he best pitching in MLB in 2003 to the worst in 2005. Garland could be the ace of the staff. I think they're going to want a starter in return for Vazquez.

Jjav829
12-21-2004, 02:04 PM
Is it 6 milion per yer or all together? Either way, I think if it's just one sum of $6,000,000 it would bring Vazquez's contract to under $10,000,000 a year. I like the idea of having Vazquez at that price more than Perez at a bit smaller price.
$6 million total. I think he was due $34 million over 3 years, so he'd be making about what Freddy makes per year. Of course that $6 million might just be all this year.

Mohoney
12-21-2004, 02:29 PM
As has become popular, here is the staff:

Garcia
Buhrle
Vazquez
Contrearas
???Perez

That looks phenomenal to me. That staff is also locked down through 2006. It would be very expensive next year but is in line if you intend to emphasize pitching and defense.
Exactly. Worry about next year next year. Just get this rotation in place, get Eckstein, and take the gamble this year while Vazquez is only going to cost $3 million.

If we have to blow the whole thing up and rebuild in '06, it's worth it to me to, just once, go into a season with a stacked rotation and stacked bullpen.

Think about it: the only gamble on our ENTIRE STAFF would be Cotts as the 2nd lefty option in the bullpen. Other than that, I have confidence that everybody else in that bullpen and everybody in that rotation will combine to catapult us into a top 5 (maybe even higher) staff in the AL.

Plus, A 1-2 punch of Podsednik and Eckstein hitting in front of Frank (when he gets back) would arguably be the best 1-2 we have had in a LONG time.

As for the bottom line: if we made almost $13 million in profit last year, with no playoff revenue, a team that was pretty much destined to 2nd place by August, and attendance dropping in the late months, think of what could happen if this pitching staff becomes a dominant force, Podsednik and Eckstein light it up at the top of the order, we win the AL Central, and the fanbase develops a real affinity with this club to the tune of 2.2-2.5 million in attendance.

Profit margin could go through the roof, and if I were an investor in this team, I would be very tempted to try to dip my fingers into that possible pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Of course, this only works if we are able to get Vazquez by giving up Garland and prospects instead of giving up Marte and prospects.

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 02:38 PM
Exactly. Worry about next year next year. Just get this rotation in place, get Eckstein, and take the gamble this year while Vazquez is only going to cost $3 million.

If we have to blow the whole thing up and rebuild in '06, it's worth it to me to, just once, go into a season with a stacked rotation and stacked bullpen.

Think about it: the only gamble on our ENTIRE STAFF would be Cotts as the 2nd lefty option in the bullpen. Other than that, I have confidence that everybody else in that bullpen and everybody in that rotation will combine to catapult us into a top 5 (maybe even higher) staff in the AL.

Plus, A 1-2 punch of Podsednik and Eckstein hitting in front of Frank (when he gets back) would arguably be the best 1-2 we have had in a LONG time.

As for the bottom line: if we made almost $13 million in profit last year, with no playoff revenue, a team that was pretty much destined to 2nd place by August, and attendance dropping in the late months, think of what could happen if this pitching staff becomes a dominant force, Podsednik and Eckstein light it up at the top of the order, we win the AL Central, and the fanbase develops a real affinity with this club to the tune of 2.2-2.5 million in attendance.

Profit margin could go through the roof, and if I were an investor in this team, I would be very tempted to try to dip my fingers into that possible pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Of course, this only works if we are able to get Vazquez by giving up Garland and prospects instead of giving up Marte and prospects.I would doubt very much that the $6M that the Yanks are sending is all 2005. It's probably spread out over the three years remaining. But Vazquez is due $10.5M in 2005 and after subtracting Garland's $3.4M, that leaves $8.1M. Even if the Yankees' money was $2M/yr, that makes the net bite only $6.1M, which is almost exactly the money saved in the Lee trade.:smile:
Of course, the Sox now need to get another 5th starter, but they should be able to get El Duque for no more than $2M (it's NOT going to be Perez). I think we've already established (based on our rock-solid sources) that JR OK'd additional money before the Lee trade when he and Kenny were playing hide-and-seek. I could live with

Garcia
Buehrle
Vazquez
Contreras
Hernandez

cburns
12-21-2004, 02:38 PM
If Garland were somehow traded to the Dodgers, can't you just see him having a career year? The switch from AL to NL would help, plus he'd be pitching in Dodger Stadium....I think he would definitely be set up for an awesome year

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 02:39 PM
If Garland were somehow traded to the Dodgers, can't you just see him having a career year? The switch from AL to NL would help, plus he'd be pitching in Dodger Stadium....I think he would definitely be set up for an awesome yearOn the staff they have left he'd be the ace.

Shingotime!!
12-21-2004, 02:43 PM
If Garland were somehow traded to the Dodgers, can't you just see him having a career year? The switch from AL to NL would help, plus he'd be pitching in Dodger Stadium....I think he would definitely be set up for an awesome year
Who cares? Just one more problem for the cubs.

jordan23ventura
12-21-2004, 02:46 PM
Can we get Vazquez WITHOUT giving up Marte?

Can it be Garland, Anderson, and something else?That would be ridiculous. What is the point of trading a cheap No.4 starter for an expensive No. 3 starter? And Anderson too? KW isn't that stupid.

The latest rumors actually seem the most likely, in the trade being some sort of package including Marte + minor leaguer or two + cheap major league player we can afford to give up. I really think Willie would be part of this because LA just lost Cora. A trade of Marte (replacing Brazoban) + Willie (replacing Cora) + Anderson (replacing Green) would work well for both teams.

We trade one of three setup men from a strong bullpen that has a legitimate closer, a minor leaguer that we will not need due to the fact that we will still have Dye, Pods, and ARow by the time Sweeney is ready, and we trade a failed 2B that we won't need because of the non-tenders.

Make the move Kenny!

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 02:49 PM
I really think Willie would be part of this because LA just lost Cora.Putting Jeff Kent on the bench...:?:

Mohoney
12-21-2004, 02:57 PM
What is the point of trading a cheap No.4 starter for an expensive No. 3 starter?
Because he's NOT a #4 starter on a playoff-caliber team. I want 4 starters that do better than 12-11, serve up longballs in even the most expansive of parks, and never strike anybody out.

I don't care what Garland's salary is. I don't care that he pitched over 200 innings.

I would @#$% A BRICK if he ever got a playoff start here.

I believe Ol' #2 calls it the "oh @#$% test". Garland would DEFINITELY not pass it as a Game 4 starter in a playoff series.

jordan23ventura
12-21-2004, 02:58 PM
Putting Jeff Kent on the bench...:?:
Jose Valentin is their third baseman. I doubt a bit a maueverability will hurt them.

Besides, with the way they are dumping salaries, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kent as tradebait either over the summer or after the '05 season. He is only on a 2 year deal.

jordan23ventura
12-21-2004, 03:05 PM
Because he's NOT a #4 starter on a playoff-caliber team. I want 4 starters that do better than 12-11, serve up longballs in even the most expansive of parks, and never strike anybody out.

I don't care what Garland's salary is. I don't care that he pitched over 200 innings.

I would @#$% A BRICK if he ever got a playoff start here.

I believe Ol' #2 calls it the "oh @#$% test". Garland would DEFINITELY not pass it as a Game 4 starter in a playoff series.
And who does pass this 'playoff test'? Odalis Perez?? LOL!!! I think you've been drinking. He's also too much money and he wants to go to DC.

I don't know how it makes sense to not fill that 5th starter slot. Who in the world would take a rotation of:
Buerhle/Garcia/Vazquez/Contreras/Grilli+Diaz+Munoz+Hope that we get another starter at the AS break
instead of a rotation of:
Buerhle/Garcia/Vazquez/Garland/Contreras?

And BTW, Vazqez didn't pass the 'playoff test' either. And also, Minnesota has been kicking our ass for a while now in that whole 'win the division' thing.

mcfish
12-21-2004, 03:17 PM
I think you are confusing COTTS with KOCH.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, however you are correct in stating we couldn't go into the season with Cotts as our only lefty out of the pen.

I'm not saying Cotts is on his way to Cooperstown, I'm just saying he's not a bad pitcher out of the bullpen. Between Koch and Jackson completely sucking and Marte not living up to his 2003 season, Cotts was the least of our problems.No confusion. I was mortified when Koch came out, horrified when Cotts came out, and I just gave up when Jackson came out. I just think that with the absolute awfulness of Koch and Jackson, people didn't really notice how bad Cotts really was. I have no evidence, I just remember how awful I thought he was and how often I thought he screwed everything up for us. I could be wrong and I do agree to disagree.

Mohoney
12-21-2004, 03:48 PM
And who does pass this 'playoff test'? Odalis Perez?? LOL!!!

And BTW, Vazqez didn't pass the 'playoff test' either.
Let's put it this way:

I'm a GM and you're a GM.

We're squaring off in a 1 game playoff to decide who gets a postseason berth.

We're each forced to use our 4th starter because our top 3 have pitched the 3 previous days just to get us to this point.

I'm running either Odalis Perez or Javier Vazquez out there, and you're running Jon Garland out there.

You honestly feel better about your chances to win that game than my chances?

owensmouth
12-21-2004, 03:50 PM
Let's put it this way:

I'm a GM and you're a GM.

We're squaring off in a 1 game playoff to decide who gets a postseason berth.

We're each forced to use our 4th starter because our top 3 have pitched the 3 previous days just to get us to this point.

I'm running either Odalis Perez or Javier Vazquez out there, and you're running Jon Garland out there.

You honestly feel better about your chances to win that game than my chances?
Against the half assed lineup that KW has set up on the south side? YES

jordan23ventura
12-21-2004, 04:09 PM
Let's put it this way:

I'm a GM and you're a GM.

We're squaring off in a 1 game playoff to decide who gets a postseason berth.

We're each forced to use our 4th starter because our top 3 have pitched the 3 previous days just to get us to this point.

I'm running either Odalis Perez or Javier Vazquez out there, and you're running Jon Garland out there.

You honestly feel better about your chances to win that game than my chances?
What are you talking about?

You want Vazquez and Perez. But, you can't have what you want. I want lobster right now but I'm eating a sandwich. It won't happen. Vazquez may be an option but definately not both, so forget about it. Due to the pitchers market Perez, I think, is being overrated and will be overpaid just like everyone else - and yet he is the one that some 'insiders' are picking as a bargain! People around here like to complain about the likes of Garland and Contreras, but do you have ANY idea how much they would be getting on the FA market right now? Jesus, look at what Benson got!

Perez is just as likely to blow up as Garland when you put him in the Cell.

All you are trying to argue is that KW should trade Garland because you don't like him and you don't care that he would be a very effective fourth starter for the money he makes. Sure, open up that fifth starter hole again. That will solve everything.

Mohoney
12-21-2004, 04:25 PM
What are you talking about?

You want Vazquez and Perez. But, you can't have what you want. I want lobster right now but I'm eating a sandwich. It won't happen. Vazquez may be an option but definately not both, so forget about it. Due to the pitchers market Perez, I think, is being overrated and will be overpaid just like everyone else - and yet he is the one that some 'insiders' are picking as a bargain! People around here like to complain about the likes of Garland and Contreras, but do you have ANY idea how much they would be getting on the FA market right now? Jesus, look at what Benson got!

Perez is just as likely to blow up as Garland when you put him in the Cell.

All you are trying to argue is that KW should trade Garland because you don't like him and you don't care that he would be a very effective fourth starter for the money he makes. Sure, open up that fifth starter hole again. That will solve everything.
Fine, then. Vazquez and El Duque.

Want to talk about a guy who passes the "oh @#$%" test in the playoffs? That's El Duque in a nutshell.

9-3 with a 2.56? If Garland even SNIFFS those numbers, I'll be more than willing to hang myself by my shoelaces in my garage, and you will be forever rid of me.

jordan23ventura
12-21-2004, 04:28 PM
Fine, then. Vazquez and El Duque.

Want to talk about a guy who passes the "oh @#$%" test in the playoffs? That's El Duque in a nutshell.

9-3 with a 2.56? If Garland even SNIFFS those numbers, I'll be more than willing to hang myself by my shoelaces in my garage, and you will be forever rid of me.
Okay, well I think we may agree on something finally. El Duque, if healthy, could very well out-perform Jon Garland.

Now go ask Uncle Jerry if you can borrow about five million dollars.

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 04:36 PM
Fine, then. Vazquez and El Duque.

Want to talk about a guy who passes the "oh @#$%" test in the playoffs? That's El Duque in a nutshell.

9-3 with a 2.56? If Garland even SNIFFS those numbers, I'll be more than willing to hang myself by my shoelaces in my garage, and you will be forever rid of me.In one game in the playoffs, it's Hernandez, hands down. But over a whole season, I'd have to go with Garland. Hernandez isn't so durable any more, and 150 IP is a stretch. As a 5th starter they'll have to limit his innings and skip him a lot if they expect to get him through the season. Even then it's iffy. If/when he goes down, you've got Grilli waiting in the wings. So if it really boils down to

20 GS Hernandez + 13 GS Grilli vs. 33 GS for Garland

I think I'd rather take my chances with Garland.

OTOH, if it comes down to trading Garland for Vazquez and filling the 5th spot with Hernandez, I think that's a net gain.

Mohoney
12-21-2004, 04:42 PM
Okay, well I think we may agree on something finally. El Duque, if healthy, could very well out-perform Jon Garland.

Now go ask Uncle Jerry if you can borrow about five million dollars.
Didn't we save 6 million in the Lee deal? Pretty good way to spend the money.

Ol' No. 2
12-21-2004, 04:45 PM
Didn't we save 6 million in the Lee deal? Pretty good way to spend the money.Hernandez won't cost $6M. Probably $2-3M, tops.

Mohoney
12-21-2004, 05:00 PM
OTOH, if it comes down to trading Garland for Vazquez and filling the 5th spot with Hernandez, I think that's a net gain.
That's what I'm talking about. A 40% new rotation for a team that finished next to last in staff ERA.

Right now, we have 2 5th starters, at best, in Garland and Contreras. We can't go into next season with both of these guys in our rotation if we have any dreams of winning the division. Since Garland can provide a return and Contreras can't, our hand is basically forced.

Our primary competition for a division crown currently has the best staff, ERA-wise, in the AL. They have the current Cy Young winner. They have a closer that finished 2nd in the Rolaids standings. They have re-signed a man that finished 5th among AL starters in ERA. We are FORCED to play catch-up at this point. We do not have the luxury of sitting back and saying "This guy really isn't that bad for a 4th starter", when both Contreras and Garland are clearly nothing more than 5th starters on championship teams, and neither one of them has ever put up numbers at this level that would merit a playoff start.

If Garland can get us Vazquez, and Marte is not involved, we have definitely upgraded our pitching staff through this move. An El Duque signing on top of this move is, in my opinion, a HUGE net gain.

I'm willing to give Buehrle, Garcia, El Duque, and even Vazquez playoff starts. As for Garland and Contreras, all I can do is pray.

mcfish
12-21-2004, 05:06 PM
That's what I'm talking about. A 40% new rotation for a team that finished next to last in staff ERA.

Right now, we have 2 5th starters, at best, in Garland and Contreras. We can't go into next season with both of these guys in our rotation if we have any dreams of winning the division. Since Garland can provide a return and Contreras can't, our hand is basically forced.

Our primary competition for a division crown currently has the best staff, ERA-wise, in the AL. They have the current Cy Young winner. They have a closer that finished 2nd in the Rolaids standings. They have re-signed a man that finished 5th among AL starters in ERA. We are FORCED to play catch-up at this point. We do not have the luxury of sitting back and saying "This guy really isn't that bad for a 4th starter", when both Contreras and Garland are clearly nothing more than 5th starters on championship teams, and neither one of them has ever put up numbers at this level that would merit a playoff start.

If Garland can get us Vazquez, and Marte is not involved, we have definitely upgraded our pitching staff through this move. An El Duque signing on top of this move is, in my opinion, a HUGE net gain.

I'm willing to give Buehrle, Garcia, El Duque, and even Vazquez playoff starts. As for Garland and Contreras, all I can do is pray.The real scary part of this scenario is that we would then have a rotation consisting of the bottom 3 of a Yankee rotation that most people didn't think was very good last year. Contreras, Vazquez, Hernandez...

batmanZoSo
12-21-2004, 05:28 PM
I was reading an article in the New York Daily News, and they were talking about the Dodgers, and what they may do after getting Vazquez. Apparently, they are looking to deal Vazquez upon his arrival to L.A. The Sox are still being talked about, and this latest little bit of news surprisingly doesn't talk about Paulie or Garland..it only mentions Damaso. If we traded Damaso plus a prospect or two, would Vazquez be a good signing??

Here was the quote I'm referring to.
"DePodesta also wants to spin Javier Vazquez off in a deal with another club - possibly to the White Sox for a package including lefty reliever Damaso Marte - after acquiring him from the Yankees in the Johnson deal."
If it's Damaso plus Sweeney and/or Anderson, then I wouldn't be happy. Still better than giving up Damaso plus Garland and Konerko, but I don't want to give up any more of our top prospects. At least not those guys. I'd gladly fork over some minor league pitching because we've shown we can't develop that anyway...and with Vazquez, Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras and Garland we won't be needing much minor league help.