PDA

View Full Version : Gammons: Sox interested in Vazquez


Fantosme
12-04-2005, 10:23 PM
According to Gammons on ESPN Insider, the White Sox asked about Vazquez but the Diamondbacks want whoever they trade Vazquez to to take Troy Glaus and the 3 years, $32 million left on his contract. It doesn't say if Arizona is willing to eat any of the contract.

Baltimore is the most likely destination, in a trade involving Erik Bedard.

antitwins13
12-04-2005, 10:25 PM
According to Gammons on ESPN Insider, the Sox asked about Vazquez but the Diamondbacks want whoever they trade Vazquez to to take Troy Glaus and the 3 years, $32 million left on his contract. It doesn't say if Arizona is willing to eat any of the contract.


No thanks! Joe Crede is our 3rd baseman, and B-Mac will be fine as a fifth starter.

JUribe1989
12-04-2005, 10:42 PM
Javier Vazquez is a headcase and a jerk. I DO NOT WANT HIM.

Banix12
12-04-2005, 10:46 PM
Wow, they are trying to unload Glaus just a year after signing him. Shocking!

No problem asking about the availabilty, I just wonder what team is desperate enough to take on that deal. Baltimore, I'm looking in your direction...

ShoelessJoeS
12-04-2005, 10:46 PM
Captain Clutch and the Future for Vazquez and Glau$...no thanks

:puking:

Qdiddy
12-04-2005, 10:56 PM
Ummmmmm.....did you ever think he was talking about the Red Sox considering he works for them and Javier asked to be traded to a east coast team?

Just a thought.

Fantosme
12-04-2005, 11:06 PM
Ummmmmm.....did you ever think he was talking about the Red Sox considering he works for them and Javier asked to be traded to a east coast team?

Just a thought.

Considering part of the quote is "The White Sox said they were interested in Vazquez, but the Diamondbacks wanted to tie Glaus to him...", I'm pretty sure he's talking about the White Sox.

Qdiddy
12-04-2005, 11:22 PM
I don't have Espn insider, maybe it said it there, but the thread said nothing about the "Whitesox" wanted, it just said the "Sox" interested in.....

Fantosme
12-04-2005, 11:31 PM
I don't have Espn insider, maybe it said it there, but the thread said nothing about the "Whitesox" wanted, it just said the "Sox" interested in.....

This is a White Sox message board so I assumed everyone would know I was talking about the White Sox when I said Sox, but I changed the original message from Sox to White Sox just to clear up any confusion.

Banix12
12-04-2005, 11:31 PM
I don't have Espn insider, maybe it said it there, but the thread said nothing about the "Whitesox" wanted, it just said the "Sox" interested in.....

On this board, "Sox" almost always refers to white sox, and in the rare instances that it does refer to the other sox the poster tends to get ripped for it. I usually find if someone wants to talk about the red sox they say the whole name.

Jjav829
12-04-2005, 11:36 PM
I don't have Espn insider, maybe it said it there, but the thread said nothing about the "Whitesox" wanted, it just said the "Sox" interested in.....

You're fairly new here, so I'll give you a heads-up. If you read anything about the "Sox," we're talking about the White Sox. If we are referring to the Red Sox they will be called the BoSox, BlowSox, Red Cubs, Red Flubs, Wrong Sox or even just the Red Sox, but never the Sox.

Fantosme
12-04-2005, 11:38 PM
If the Sox made this trade, I don't think it necessarily means BMac is gone. With Garland turning down the 3-year offer and FA looming, plus a crazy market for pitchers, it wouldn't surprise me to see Garland traded.

Do you really think Garland will take something like 3/24 from the Sox when he may get 5/45 from elsewhere if he pitches well this year? The Sox don't like to give pitchers contracts any longer than 3 years.

FarWestChicago
12-04-2005, 11:43 PM
You're fairly new here, so I'll give you a heads-up. If you read anything about the "Sox," we're talking about the White Sox. If we are referring to the Red Sox they will be called the BoSox, BlowSox, Red Cubs, Red Flubs or even just the Red Sox, but never the Sox.You left out Wrong Sox.

Jjav829
12-04-2005, 11:46 PM
You left out Wrong Sox.

I knew I was missing one.

Err, I mean, no I didn't. :tongue:

Qdiddy
12-04-2005, 11:48 PM
I understand this is a WHITESOX message board. I'm only new under this name, but I've been here for about 5 years. My password was messed up on my other account.

What I was referring to was Gammon's might be referring to the Red Sox, and not the Whitesox. I understand you were referring to the Whitesox. As you know, ESPN & the eastcoast media never refer to us as being the "SOX", that would be the RED SOX. Anyways, I don't like the deal.....

getonbckthr
12-05-2005, 12:10 AM
If the Dbacks were willing to pay some of their contracts I would do Crede/Garland for Vasquez/Glaus. I would do this cause I can't picture either Joe or Jon resigning. Crede's agent who I won't mention by name hates the Sox and the feelings are mutual. As far Garland I think he'll just wanna go home to pitch.

getonbckthr
12-05-2005, 04:13 AM
Also, when talking about the White Sox, you could use Real Sox...:supernana:
Or palehose compared to carmines (I think thats what Hawk calls the Red Sox).

Domeshot17
12-05-2005, 08:24 AM
I think it is something that should be looked into. If Garland gets one year arbitration this year Next year 3/5 of our rotation is FA to Be. Buehlre, Contreras, Garland. Crede will be coming up on a contract year and he would really have to ask the sox and Borass to try and work something out. The problem with Borass is that If Crede wanted 5 years at 2.5 million a year to stay with the white sox, he would ask for 7 years and 8 million a season.

Anyway, my point with that was, Vazquez could be locked up longer. I don't think hes a bad guy, I think he's got put in some bad spots. Too Fragile to be in the NY, and too far from his family in Arizona.

I remember another guy who ws too fragile to pitch effectively in New York and being distanced from his family killed him. Jose Contreras. I bet Vazquez would be a great fit with Freddy and Ozzie and Jose and Uribe. And if Ozzie and Coop could get Vazquez to turn around like Jose did, He could be the best pitcher on the staff.

Tragg
12-05-2005, 08:34 AM
If the Dbacks were willing to pay some of their contracts I would do Crede/Garland for Vasquez/Glaus. I would do this cause I can't picture either Joe or Jon resigning. Crede's agent who I won't mention by name hates the Sox and the feelings are mutual. As far Garland I think he'll just wanna go home to pitch.
I would consider that had we not signed Konerko. But we can't afford that high-priced package, and keep Buehrle et al under contract. In fact, I think Garland, MB and hopefully BM will be the core of this staff for the next 5 years at least, and fitting 2 others around them.

Flight #24
12-05-2005, 09:23 AM
I think it is something that should be looked into. If Garland gets one year arbitration this year Next year 3/5 of our rotation is FA to Be. Buehlre, Contreras, Garland. Crede will be coming up on a contract year and he would really have to ask the sox and Borass to try and work something out. The problem with Borass is that If Crede wanted 5 years at 2.5 million a year to stay with the white sox, he would ask for 7 years and 8 million a season.

Anyway, my point with that was, Vazquez could be locked up longer. I don't think hes a bad guy, I think he's got put in some bad spots. Too Fragile to be in the NY, and too far from his family in Arizona.

I remember another guy who ws too fragile to pitch effectively in New York and being distanced from his family killed him. Jose Contreras. I bet Vazquez would be a great fit with Freddy and Ozzie and Jose and Uribe. And if Ozzie and Coop could get Vazquez to turn around like Jose did, He could be the best pitcher on the staff.

I'm fairly certain that Buehrle is subject to a team option for IIRC $9.5M for '07, which would almost certainly be exercised. So at most you'l be needing to replace 2 of the 5 starters in '07 and then worry about extending Garcia/Buehrle after that.

Which is why IMO it's OK to give Garland a market rate deal of 8-10M. Paul Byrd just got $7M/yr from the Tribe, Garland's not taking less than that as a starting salary. Start him out at 8 or 9M on a 3-yr deal, basically using Contreras $$$ to increase Garland's salary after '06. Then you have to find 1 starter for '07 and you have at least 2 guys locked in for '08(Garland, McCarthy).

Randar68
12-05-2005, 09:41 AM
Glaus is a hack at 3B compared to Crede and has played himself, via injury, to near-DH status.

Any trade that required us taking on Glaus' salary is a non-starter. This is not Crede's last year of arbitration, so even if he has a one-year deal, it's not a big thing long-term at this point. Might be the smart thing to do with the back questions.

Canadian_SoxFan
12-05-2005, 01:19 PM
If I read the article correctly, it was the Red Sox who were interested in Vazquez. I don't see any way KW would want this guy, hes a mediocre pitcher at best.

DenverSock
12-05-2005, 01:29 PM
You're fairly new here, so I'll give you a heads-up. If you read anything about the "Sox," we're talking about the White Sox. If we are referring to the Red Sox they will be called the BoSox, BlowSox, Red Cubs, Red Flubs, Wrong Sox or even just the Red Sox, but never the Sox.

I sometimes call them the Commie Sox as in Communist=Red.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :rolling: :rolling: :offtopic: :offtopic:

I guess I've a strange sense of humor.

Man Soo Lee
12-05-2005, 03:39 PM
So at most you'l be needing to replace 2 of the 5 starters in '07 and then worry about extending Garcia/Buehrle after that.

Are we sure that Contreras will be a free agent? He'll have less than four years of service time after 2006.

Tekijawa
12-05-2005, 03:42 PM
Are we sure that Contreras will be a free agent? He'll have less than four years of service time after 2006.

Pretty sure he signed a Major League Contract after Defecting, Kind of like what Prior did to the Cubs, just no life threatening situations involved...

Baby Fisk
12-05-2005, 03:42 PM
Altogether now everyone: "GAMMONS IS AN IDIOT."

Vasquez made it very clear last off-season that he wanted to remain on the east coast (closer to family). Last time I checked, the western shore of Lake Michigan did not fall within the classification of "east coast". He does not want to play in Chicago. If there's any interest in Vasquez from the Sox, it would be to acquire him, then flip him somewhere else. For whom, I can't speculate.

CLR01
12-05-2005, 03:43 PM
I knew I was missing one.

Err, I mean, no I didn't. :tongue:


You forgot to edit his post. Do it quick before anyone notices.

Man Soo Lee
12-05-2005, 04:00 PM
Pretty sure he signed a Major League Contract after Defecting, Kind of like what Prior did to the Cubs, just no life threatening situations involved...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that has any implications in regard to free agent status. A player on a Major League Contract has to be put on the 40-man roster and is paid his major league wage even in the minors (like when Contreras was pitching his way through the minors in 2003).

It will still take six full years of major league service for guys like Prior and Teixeira to become free agents.

The Yankees had a deadline to re-sign Hideki Matsui because he had a clause in his contract that prevented them from offering arbitration. He would have been arbitration-eligible without that clause, not a free agent.

Ol' No. 2
12-05-2005, 04:16 PM
Altogether now everyone: "GAMMONS IS AN IDIOT."

Vasquez made it very clear last off-season that he wanted to remain on the east coast (closer to family). Last time I checked, the western shore of Lake Michigan did not fall within the classification of "east coast". He does not want to play in Chicago. If there's any interest in Vasquez from the Sox, it would be to acquire him, then flip him somewhere else. For whom, I can't speculate.His main objective is to make it easier on his family flying back and forth from Puerto Rico. I don't think Chicago is that much farther than New York or Boston, and it's a hell of a lot closer than Phoenix.

Flight #24
12-05-2005, 04:25 PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that has any implications in regard to free agent status. A player on a Major League Contract has to be put on the 40-man roster and is paid his major league wage even in the minors (like when Contreras was pitching his way through the minors in 2003).

It will still take six full years of major league service for guys like Prior and Teixeira to become free agents.

The Yankees had a deadline to re-sign Hideki Matsui because he had a clause in his contract that prevented them from offering arbitration. He would have been arbitration-eligible without that clause, not a free agent.

If true, then the Sox could (and IMO would) go to arb with Jose on short-term deals unless they could get him on a 2, maybe 3-yr deal. He'll make $10M/yr or more, but for a WS contender, on a 1-year deal you'd probably take that hit.

Ol' No. 2
12-05-2005, 04:35 PM
If true, then the Sox could (and IMO would) go to arb with Jose on short-term deals unless they could get him on a 2, maybe 3-yr deal. He'll make $10M/yr or more, but for a WS contender, on a 1-year deal you'd probably take that hit.I'm not sure why, but I believe the 6-yr FA limitation doesn't apply to international players who are also exempt from the draft.

MrRoboto83
12-05-2005, 04:36 PM
Also, when talking about the White Sox, you could use Real Sox...:supernana:





I call them the Red Cubs, that pisses their fans off the most.

Tekijawa
12-05-2005, 04:41 PM
I'm not sure why, but I believe the 6-yr FA limitation doesn't apply to international players who are also exempt from the draft.

I'm pretty sure this is the case and why most of them defect to other countries first instead of entering the US directly and applying for the Draft, I believe this was changed speciffically because of the contreras situation. Which is why he is making 10 million a year instead of the league minimum. Mark Prior also Signed a Major league Contract out of the Draft, I don't think Mr. T in Texas did that, but it was one of the reasons why Minnesota didn't want to draft him, because he and his agent insisted on that type of contract which would make him more expensive and allow him to file For Free Agency after the contract is up... Although I believe they have since signed Prior to an extension.

Flight #24
12-05-2005, 04:55 PM
I'm pretty sure this is the case and why most of them defect to other countries first instead of entering the US directly and applying for the Draft, I believe this was changed speciffically because of the contreras situation. Which is why he is making 10 million a year instead of the league minimum. Mark Prior also Signed a Major league Contract out of the Draft, I don't think Mr. T in Texas did that, but it was one of the reasons why Minnesota didn't want to draft him, because he and his agent insisted on that type of contract which would make him more expensive and allow him to file For Free Agency after the contract is up... Although I believe they have since signed Prior to an extension.

I thought that was basically to give them more leverage to sign anywhere they wanted rather than getting drafted and having to hold out for more $$$, etc. Per MLB4U, Prior's contract does seem to make him arb-eligible
Mark Prior: 5-Year worth 10.5M- will make in 2002- 250K + 4M signing bonus, in 2003- 650K, in 2004- 1.6M, and in 2005- 2M, and in 2006- 3.6M- + he can void deal after 2004 if elgible for arbitration and then by opting for salary arb.- + receives a 5M escaltion of salary for winning Cy Young or an ALL-STAR selection in the previous year Agent: John Boggs Service Time: 2.131