PDA

View Full Version : How much is Vazquez worth


gosox41
12-22-2004, 09:30 AM
Let's assume the Sox sign El Duque and now have 5 starters. We all know the Yankees desperately want RJ and are pissed off about the trade falling apart.

The question is, if the Sox get involved and trade for Vazquez, what is he really worth?

Things have changed. The Sox aren't as desperate for pitching and the Yankees appear to be the only team that is willing to offer a lot of talent and BS to get RJ.

If KW is smart he'd take advantage of this. There's no reason he couldn't get El Duque and cash for Garland and a mid-lelvel prospect. Anything else shouldn't be done as the Sox aren't as desperate. I don't think a trade of PK and Garland (that's been runored and shot down) is a good idea at all. And I don't think the Sox should give up any of their top prospects.


Bob

PaleHoseGeorge
12-22-2004, 09:37 AM
Vazquez is worth exactly what the highest bidder will pay him. Duh...

Trading Jon Garland makes even less sense than trading Paul Konerko. We need MORE PITCHING to make up for our weakened offensive production. Both Garland and Konerko serve critical needs.

Let's try finishing higher than second for a change.
:cool:

Mohoney
12-22-2004, 09:54 AM
If Garland is the only major league player I give up, I do the deal.

The more cash the Yankees throw our way, the better our prospects will have to be. If the Yankees end up pitching in upwards of 10 million over three years, and we're still in a position financially to add Eckstein or Cora, I wouldn't be opposed to giving up Anderson and a throw-in.

As long as we still have Sweeney, I think it's worth the gamble to trade Anderson. In my opinion anyway, we have been drafting and developing outfielders well, and it won't be too long before Sweeney steps up his game to a level comparable to Anderson.

Maybe I'm putting too much stock in last year's Spring Training, but Sweeney looked awfully good to me. I really want to keep him, McCarthy, and Fields as the nucleus of our farm system, let these guys grow together, and hope that we can have a middle infielder and a catcher blossom and add to this core.

Plus, if guys like Lumsden, Liotta, and Tracey can take the next step, we will be looking good on the pitching side.

A. Cavatica
12-22-2004, 10:28 AM
Having that deal fall through puts both the Yankees and the D-Backs on the spot. Arizona will probably have to take less for RJ, and the Yankees may give up more to get that third team involved.

I hope KW is talking to Theo Epstein as well, seeing if the Red Sox want to snatch RJ out from under the Yankees' nose. Maybe Millar and Garland and a prospect to Arizona, Clement to Chicago, Randy to Boston?

MRKARNO
12-22-2004, 10:33 AM
Garland and a mid-level prospect like you said with us taking on a fair amount of the salary so as not to give up too much talent. If the Yanks (or someone) paid a few million this year and next (no more than 8-10 total, or possibly even less if it meant not having to give up real minor league talent), I think it could work for all sides. A rotation of Buehrle, Garcia, Vazquez, Contreras and Hernandez would be amazignly good and if we didnt have to give up much to acheive it, I'd be ecstatic.

mcfish
12-22-2004, 11:28 AM
Having that deal fall through puts both the Yankees and the D-Backs on the spot. Arizona will probably have to take less for RJ, and the Yankees may give up more to get that third team involved.Shouldn't this have been the case from the start anyway? LA was taking quite a beating in the proposed trade and The Yankees were trading Vazquez and 2 minor leaguers for RJ and Ishii. Do you think that AZ would trade RJ for Vazquez and 2 minor leaguers? No way they would, so why was LA going to help by giving up what NY rightfully should give up for RJ? I actually don't see why NY doesn't try to send Sheffield and Vazquez to AZ for RJ. You don't think they could find another free agent RF?

mcfish
12-22-2004, 11:30 AM
Garland and a mid-level prospect like you said with us taking on a fair amount of the salary so as not to give up too much talent. If the Yanks (or someone) paid a few million this year and next (no more than 8-10 total, or possibly even less if it meant not having to give up real minor league talent), I think it could work for all sides. A rotation of Buehrle, Garcia, Vazquez, Contreras and Hernandez would be amazignly good and if we didnt have to give up much to acheive it, I'd be ecstatic.But didn't I see a post from you earlier or yesterday stating the fact that we would then have the bottom 3/5 of a Yankee rotation that wasn't that good last year to begin with?

Harris=God
12-22-2004, 01:27 PM
I actually don't see why NY doesn't try to send Sheffield and Vazquez to AZ for RJ. You don't think they could find another free agent RF?
I agree that RF/CF would be beltran

Jurr
12-22-2004, 01:50 PM
What's Vazquez going to do? What're the yanks going to do with him? They're going to spend all of that money on a possible long reliever? Ha! Javy is going to end up leaving New York at a cheap price.

MeanFish
12-22-2004, 01:52 PM
Javy: Young, has a lot of upside, struggled in 2004.

Garland: Young, has a lot of upside, struggled in 2004.

I don't know about you, but I really don't see the point in trading one for the other if it also requires that we give up prospects and ends up costing us more money.

Jurr
12-22-2004, 02:08 PM
Javy: Young, has a lot of upside, struggled in 2004.

Garland: Young, has a lot of upside, struggled in 2004.

I don't know about you, but I really don't see the point in trading one for the other if it also requires that we give up prospects and ends up costing us more money.Brilliant post.

HomeFish
12-22-2004, 02:13 PM
Javy: Young, has a lot of upside, struggled in 2004.

Garland: Young, has a lot of upside, struggled in 2004.

I don't know about you, but I really don't see the point in trading one for the other if it also requires that we give up prospects and ends up costing us more money.

This is possibly the most ridiculous WSI post in recent memory. When has Garland put up the dominating numbers we saw from Vazquez in Montreal?

D. TODD
12-22-2004, 02:15 PM
Javy MUST leave the Yanks. He was named by the New York Post as sabotaging the deal for the Big Unit, by refusing to take the physical for the Dodgers. He did not want to play on the west coast. The New York media & fans will eat him alive this year if he stays, blaming him for no Unit. He wilted under the N.Y. pressure last year, now it will be twofold. The Yanks will move him at all costs at this point.

MeanFish
12-22-2004, 02:19 PM
This is possibly the most ridiculous WSI post in recent memory. When has Garland put up the dominating numbers we saw from Vazquez in Montreal?
Honestly? His 2001 season tracks similarly with Vazquez' 2003 season, moreso when you take league differences into effect.

Jurr
12-22-2004, 03:00 PM
Garland's been learning how to pitch in the toughest proving grounds in Major League Baseball, that being the least pitcher friendly park in the terribly pitcher unfriendly AL. If he gets his stuff together, he's still got time to be very good. In Oakland or somewhere like that, he would be a 15+ game winner.

JRIG
12-22-2004, 03:50 PM
This is possibly the most ridiculous WSI post in recent memory. When has Garland put up the dominating numbers we saw from Vazquez in Montreal?
And the dominant first half he had in 2004 with the Yanks. Vazquez has had exactly one bad half-season in the last 5 years. Other than that he's been an ace-type pitcher. Garland has been league average his entire career. Vazquez would be a huge upgrade.

MRKARNO
12-22-2004, 03:56 PM
But didn't I see a post from you earlier or yesterday stating the fact that we would then have the bottom 3/5 of a Yankee rotation that wasn't that good last year to begin with?
I did in fact say that we'd have the bottom 3/5 of the Yankee rotation. I did not say that I thought it wasnt that good to begin with. It was talent laden and most of the talent just didnt come through. Vazquez has proven himself to be a better pitcher than Garland, but come to think of it, the difference is probably not worth the millions more and the talent we'd realistically have to give up. Our rotation isnt that bad now.