PDA

View Full Version : Hunch: Vasquez to Mets or Cardinals


NoNeckEra
08-21-2006, 12:16 PM
If the Cubs can move Niefi to Detroit on a waiver deal, the Sox can move Vasquez to either the Mets(newly pitched starved) or Cardinals(starters struggling). This opens up a spot for McCarthy, who deserves a shot.

tlebar318
08-21-2006, 12:17 PM
I like it...we get Beltran in return right?:D:

SOXintheBURGH
08-21-2006, 12:19 PM
I'd more interested in moving Vazquez.

Thome25
08-21-2006, 12:19 PM
Attention: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

CHISOXFAN13
08-21-2006, 12:21 PM
I wish people would realize that at this point of the season there is no way in hell McCarthy goes to the rotation. He isn't stretched out enough to pitch more than three or four innings!!!!

The Dude
08-21-2006, 12:25 PM
If the Cubs can move Niefi to Detroit on a waiver deal, the Sox can move Vasquez to either the Mets(newly pitched starved) or Cardinals(starters struggling). This opens up a spot for McCarthy, who deserves a shot.

Hunch: No ****ing chance.

voodoochile
08-21-2006, 12:26 PM
What would the Sox get back to make it worth it?

Randar68
08-21-2006, 12:30 PM
What would the Sox get back to make it worth it?

How about Lastings Milledge?

gobears1987
08-21-2006, 12:30 PM
What would the Sox get back to make it worth it?Not having Javy pitch every 5th day! :redneck

soxinem1
08-21-2006, 12:31 PM
What would the Sox get back to make it worth it?

If the Mets pay Vasquez' salary, they can give us Valentin back..... Maybe he can light a fire under Uribe's ***!

Baby Fisk
08-21-2006, 12:35 PM
I wish people would realize that at this point of the season there is no way in hell McCarthy goes to the rotation. He isn't stretched out enough to pitch more than three or four innings!!!!
What he said.

y2j2785
08-21-2006, 12:39 PM
How about Lastings Milledge?

Milledge isnt going to pass through waivers.

The Immigrant
08-21-2006, 12:40 PM
Not having Javy pitch every 5th day! :redneck

POTW

I'd throw in $100 to make this happen.

Tekijawa
08-21-2006, 12:42 PM
If the Cubs can move Niefi to Detroit on a waiver deal, the Sox can move Vasquez to either the Mets(newly pitched starved) or Cardinals(starters struggling). This opens up a spot for McCarthy, who deserves a shot.

I'm guessing that Boston would Claim him before he even got a shot at the NL teams...

southside rocks
08-21-2006, 12:47 PM
If the Cubs can move Niefi to Detroit on a waiver deal, the Sox can move Vasquez to either the Mets(newly pitched starved) or Cardinals(starters struggling). This opens up a spot for McCarthy, who deserves a shot.

Ummm... Neifi's salary is $2.5 million per year. He has one year (2007) left on his contract. He went to a club that is driving hard for a division championship, and who lost their second baseman for the season.

Javier makes what, $11 million per year? And has how many years left on his contract?

Not quite the same as picking up a utility infielder to help you in the stretch drive ... and as for the McCarthy thing, I would so love to know how Brandon became The Next Cy Young with 131 career IP and a 4.04 career ERA. Because I just don't see it, and I haven't been overwhelmed by McCarthy's performance this year. I think that in years to come, he could be another Jon Garland, but is he the magic pixie dust that they can't win without this season? I sure don't think so.

Now, if the Sox could have sent Javier to the Cubs for Maddux, that would have been awesome.

Chip Z'nuff
08-21-2006, 12:54 PM
Hunch: Buerhle will be traded as well and Jenks will be our starter after McCarthy

NoNeckEra
08-21-2006, 01:06 PM
Hunch:
This thread will reappear within a week, espcially if Glavine is lost for the year.

dickallen15
08-21-2006, 01:10 PM
Unfortunately Vazquez is going nowhere. What's really a problem is next weekend's match-up with the Twins. Santana will be pitching one of the games for Minnesota, and Vazquez will be pitching another of the games for the White Sox. Unfortunately they won't be matched up against each other. It will take a minor miracle to get 2 out of 3.

goldglove24
08-21-2006, 01:16 PM
Just like yesterday's game. They wrote it off before the first pitch was thrown out because of the "Santana Factor." Javy is another story. What a waste of money.

As for McCarthy, he will probably be in the starting rotation next year. And, what's this I hear about Freddy complaining that he's not getting run support?

CHISOXFAN13
08-21-2006, 01:21 PM
Unfortunately Vazquez is going nowhere. What's really a problem is next weekend's match-up with the Twins. Santana will be pitching one of the games for Minnesota, and Vazquez will be pitching another of the games for the White Sox. Unfortunately they won't be matched up against each other. It will take a minor miracle to get 2 out of 3.

I'm not writing Saturday off as a loss yet. The Sox actually had some pretty decent at-bats against Santana yesterday and were able to out the bat on the ball against him which was a nice change.

And if Jose is on, that offense will have trouble scoring any runs.

TheOldRoman
08-21-2006, 01:27 PM
Unfortunately Vazquez is going nowhere. What's really a problem is next weekend's match-up with the Twins. Santana will be pitching one of the games for Minnesota, and Vazquez will be pitching another of the games for the White Sox. Unfortunately they won't be matched up against each other. It will take a minor miracle to get 2 out of 3.:rolleyes:

DumpJerry
08-21-2006, 01:27 PM
Is this a variation of the "I miss Aaron" threads? I hope not.

Tekijawa
08-21-2006, 01:30 PM
Is this a variation of the "I miss Aaron" threads? I hope not.That does bring up another good point...:cool:

eriqjaffe
08-21-2006, 02:45 PM
I wish people would realize that at this point of the season there is no way in hell McCarthy goes to the rotation. He isn't stretched out enough to pitch more than three or four innings!!!!...and how, exactly, does this make him any different than Vazquez?

CLR01
08-21-2006, 02:55 PM
Attention: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.


I hate to hijack a thread but Thome was not a monster hitter on our 2005 World Champion White Sox.

CLR01
08-21-2006, 03:02 PM
...and how, exactly, does this make him any different than Vazquez?

Vazquez can pich 6-7-8 innings(maybe not effectively)? :dunno: If McCarthy were to go to the rotation and he is not able to pitch more than 3-4 innings who is going to pick up the other 5-6? Are the Sox going to burn up their enitre bullpen everytime he starts? Haeger, Logan, Tracey? That's a step sideways, at best.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-21-2006, 03:06 PM
I don't understand the Vazquez hate.

Sox starters (3 ER or less = good start, 4 or more ER = bad start):

Vazquez 13-11
Buehrle 14-11
Contreras 14-9
Garcia 15-10
Garland 15-10

All 5 pitchers are within 12 innings pitched of each other (ranging from 151 - 163 year to date).

The fact of the matter is with the debatable exception of Contreras, no other starter is pitching as effective as last year. Singling out a man brought in to be a #4 or #5 who is pitching about the same as three other starters is scapegoating IMO. Vazquez hasn't earned a playoff rotation spot but he does have upside.

Also McCarthy is needed in the bullpen to provide the club long relief - he is the only one capable of going 3 or 4 innings when needed.

Kenny Williams is trying to win in 2006. Giving up a pitcher for a future prospect is nowhere on his radar which is why this is appropriately in "What's the score?".

Randar68
08-21-2006, 03:14 PM
Milledge isnt going to pass through waivers.

Players without MLB service time do not have to pass through waivers. Chris Robinson (that catcher traded to the Cubs for Neifi Perez) would have been picked-up otherwise.

EDIT: Perhaps it's 40-man roster that is the deciding factor of having to pass through waivers or not. I cannot recall off the top of my head right now.

TheOldRoman
08-21-2006, 03:16 PM
I don't understand the Vazquez hate.

Sox starters (3 ER or less = good start, 4 or more ER = bad start):

Vazquez 13-11
Buehrle 14-11
Contreras 14-9
Garcia 15-10
Garland 15-10

All 5 pitchers are within 12 innings pitched of each other (ranging from 151 - 163 year to date).

The fact of the matter is with the debatable exception of Contreras, no other starter is pitching as effective as last year. Singling out a man brought in to be a #4 or #5 who is pitching about the same as three other starters is scapegoating IMO. Vazquez hasn't earned a playoff rotation spot but he does have upside.

Also McCarthy is needed in the bullpen to provide the club long relief - he is the only one capable of going 3 or 4 innings when needed.

Kenny Williams is trying to win in 2006. Giving up a pitcher for a future prospect is nowhere on his radar which is why this is appropriately in "What's the score?".
You hit the nail on the head. Vazquez it not living up to expectations, but neither are Buehrle or Garcia. Hell, neither is Contreras lately. If we don't make the playoffs, it wont be because of the "horrible 5th starter headcase that KW traded the reincarnation of Jesus for", it would be because Buehrle and Garcia didn't give us what they have given their whole careers.
Vazquez gives up four runs against the Royals and 5 runs against the Twins, and it is all his fault we lost. People are screaming for his head. Contreras gives up 6 runs against the Royals IN ONE INNING, and people are ready to shake it off as a bad day?

Ol' No. 2
08-21-2006, 03:34 PM
You hit the nail on the head. Vazquez it not living up to expectations, but neither are Buehrle or Garcia. Hell, neither is Contreras lately. If we don't make the playoffs, it wont be because of the "horrible 5th starter headcase that KW traded the reincarnation of Jesus for", it would be because Buehrle and Garcia didn't give us what they have given their whole careers.
Vazquez gives up four runs against the Royals and 5 runs against the Twins, and it is all his fault we lost. People are screaming for his head. Contreras gives up 6 runs against the Royals IN ONE INNING, and people are ready to shake it off as a bad day?IF ONLY Javy Vazquez was the Sox' biggest problem.

CLR01
08-21-2006, 03:40 PM
EDIT: Perhaps it's 40-man roster that is the deciding factor of having to pass through waivers or not. I cannot recall off the top of my head right now.


Correct. According to Steve Phillips, anyone who is on the 40-man roster must pass through waivers before thy can be traded.

TheOldRoman
08-21-2006, 03:55 PM
IF ONLY Javy Vazquez was the Sox' biggest problem.
I agree, and it is not a dark cloud analysis to see that.
If we don't catch Detroit, it has nothing to do with them. It wont be because the Tigers' pitching is so great, because of their great start, or anything else. If we lose the division, it will be because we gave it away. It will be because we lost 6 to the Royals, 2 to the Cubs, 1 to the Pirates, 2 to TB, etc.
It is amazing that we are still 5.5 out considering the year Crede is having, the year Dye is having, the year AJ is having, Thome's first half, etc. However, there are a lot of underacheiving players on this team. Vazquez is one of many.

CHISOXFAN13
08-21-2006, 04:02 PM
...and how, exactly, does this make him any different than Vazquez?

Yeah, you are right. Let's just blow the entire bullpen in one game since MB and FG have been so damn consistent and great innings eaters for the Sox this year.

PatK
08-21-2006, 04:21 PM
Does anyone else remember that the first run yesterday was scored by a guy taht got on because of an error?

lakeviewsoxfan
08-21-2006, 04:37 PM
Does anyone else remember that the first run yesterday was scored by a guy taht got on because of an error?

CWS pitchers have been unable to pitch over ou teams mistakes all year.:angry:

infohawk
08-21-2006, 04:48 PM
I don't think that KW would trade a veteran starting pitcher for anything other than young major league-ready or close to major league-ready pitching. The general model I see for a trade would be what Oakland got in return for Mark Mulder. St. Louis sent Danny Haren and Kiko Calero to Oakland. I believe that one of the reasons why KW has had no problems trading some minor league pitching away is because he believes he can replace it and perhaps even upgrade it by trading one of the starters. Freddy may not be what he once was and Javy has struggled, but the pitching market is so incredibly thin right now that KW may get more than you would think for either of them.

Ol' No. 2
08-21-2006, 05:05 PM
I agree, and it is not a dark cloud analysis to see that.
If we don't catch Detroit, it has nothing to do with them. It wont be because the Tigers' pitching is so great, because of their great start, or anything else. If we lose the division, it will be because we gave it away. It will be because we lost 6 to the Royals, 2 to the Cubs, 1 to the Pirates, 2 to TB, etc.
It is amazing that we are still 5.5 out considering the year Crede is having, the year Dye is having, the year AJ is having, Thome's first half, etc. However, there are a lot of underacheiving players on this team. Vazquez is one of many.It is also amazing that we are still 5.5 out considering the way the starting pitching has gone.:(:

Mr. White Sox
08-21-2006, 05:40 PM
For whoever stated in the thread that the starters are all comparable because of wins, losses and IP... in the words of GOB "COME ON!"

Vazquez has the best run support in all of baseball; I don't know the exact number but it's above 8.2 runs per game. Jim freaking Parque could win 15 games this year with that kind of run support.

That being said, Vazquez won't be traded, it's just not feasible anymore due to the waiver issues. I didn't hate the trade when it happened, but I'm starting to dislike it more and more with every start Vazquez makes.

Ol' No. 2
08-21-2006, 06:00 PM
For whoever stated in the thread that the starters are all comparable because of wins, losses and IP... in the words of GOB "COME ON!"

Vazquez has the best run support in all of baseball; I don't know the exact number but it's above 8.2 runs per game. Jim freaking Parque could win 15 games this year with that kind of run support.

That being said, Vazquez won't be traded, it's just not feasible anymore due to the waiver issues. I didn't hate the trade when it happened, but I'm starting to dislike it more and more with every start Vazquez makes.What difference does it make if they score 99 runs? If he pitched well, he pitched well, and if you look over those 11 wins you'll find all but three were quality starts.

areilly
08-21-2006, 06:08 PM
It is also amazing that we are still 5.5 out considering the way the starting pitching has gone.:(:

Sometimes I wonder if this could go down as the overall worst non-strike year in MLB history. With the exception of the Kittens (and to a lesser extent the Sox [and to a much lesser extent the Yanks]) there aren't really any good teams out there...which, oddly enough, gives me a tremendous amount of hope for the Good Guys to repeat.

Mr. White Sox
08-22-2006, 02:00 AM
What difference does it make if they score 99 runs? If he pitched well, he pitched well, and if you look over those 11 wins you'll find all but three were quality starts.
I think you missed my point, because you're agreeing with me. Javier's wins are based entirely on the performance of the offense and have nothing to do with Vazquez as a pitcher. The run support is also luck-based, it seems...

I'd take Jake Peavy and his 6-12 record over Vazquez any day.

TheOldRoman
08-22-2006, 03:31 AM
I think you missed my point, because you're agreeing with me. Javier's wins are based entirely on the performance of the offense and have nothing to do with Vazquez as a pitcher. The run support is also luck-based, it seems...

I'd take Jake Peavy and his 6-12 record over Vazquez any day. OK, no. He doesn't agree with you, and I don't think you even read his post. ALL BUT 3 of his wins were quality starts. A quality start is 6 innings pitched with 3 or less runs given up. As always, winning depends on offense, but when you have a quality start, you put your team in a great position to win the game. In him making quality starts, it means that he STILL would have won even if the offense scored only half of those 8.2 runs. For example, he gave up 1 run to Toronto, but the offense scored 7. Did he win because of his offense? No, he won because he shut the Blue Jays down.
The most runs given up in a win was 5, and that happened once. In all his other wins, he allowed 3,2,1, or 0. It wasn't like he was leaving games with the Sox up 9-8.

Foulke You
08-22-2006, 01:17 PM
I doubt a trade is in the works for Vazquez however, the trade theorists do have one fact in their corner. McCarthy has barely been used out of that bullpen of late which some could interpret as "they're gonna move him into the rotation".

spiffie
08-22-2006, 01:29 PM
OK, no. He doesn't agree with you, and I don't think you even read his post. ALL BUT 3 of his wins were quality starts. A quality start is 6 innings pitched with 3 or less runs given up. As always, winning depends on offense, but when you have a quality start, you put your team in a great position to win the game. In him making quality starts, it means that he STILL would have won even if the offense scored only half of those 8.2 runs. For example, he gave up 1 run to Toronto, but the offense scored 7. Did he win because of his offense? No, he won because he shut the Blue Jays down.
The most runs given up in a win was 5, and that happened once. In all his other wins, he allowed 3,2,1, or 0. It wasn't like he was leaving games with the Sox up 9-8.
Agreed, Vazquez pitched well in his wins. Problem is he has pitched poorly in pretty much every other start. This year Javy has 11 wins and 9 quality starts. As opposed to Peavy who has 6 wins and 16 quality starts. Javy is lucky in that every time he has thrown a quality start this year he has gotten a win with the single exception of April 8 against KC (7 innings, 2 ER). At least the team hasn't wasted any of his good performances on 1-0 or 3-2 losses thus far. Peavy on the other hand has had 7 quality starts where he got a loss at the end of it.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-22-2006, 01:58 PM
Agreed, Vazquez pitched well in his wins. Problem is he has pitched poorly in pretty much every other start. This year Javy has 11 wins and 9 quality starts. As opposed to Peavy who has 6 wins and 16 quality starts. Javy is lucky in that every time he has thrown a quality start this year he has gotten a win with the single exception of April 8 against KC (7 innings, 2 ER). At least the team hasn't wasted any of his good performances on 1-0 or 3-2 losses thus far. Peavy on the other hand has had 7 quality starts where he got a loss at the end of it.

Peavy also pitches in a severe pitchers park whereas Javier pitches in a severe hitters park. Peavy also pitches in the horse piss National League in the weakest division (the entire division totally sucks ass offensively) whereas Javier pitches against Major League competition.

Put Peavy in US Cellular against New York, Boston, Toronto, Detroit, Anaheim, et al and lets see what he does.

A 4.55 ERA in the NL is comparable to Javier's 5.13 AL ERA. Factor in the ballparks and Vazquez is having the same if not better season.

I'm not saying Vazquez will pan out better than Peavy as this is a bad season for Peavy but this season both are performing under expectations.

soxinem1
08-22-2006, 02:24 PM
Peavy also pitches in a severe pitchers park whereas Javier pitches in a severe hitters park. Peavy also pitches in the horse piss National League in the weakest division (the entire division totally sucks ass offensively) whereas Javier pitches against Major League competition.

What was Vasquez excuse before this season then?

SouthSide_HitMen
08-22-2006, 02:50 PM
What was Vasquez excuse before this season then?

He (http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vazquja01.shtml) pitched excellent until the second half of 2004.

Vazquez was brought up at an age where most pitchers are in the low minors or juniors in college. His age 24 - 26 years were excellent and he had a excellent first half in New York (with a great recrod, ERA and ASG selection). His arm was tired during the second half.

If you look at his starts last season, he had 6 or 7 blow up starts and the rest good to excellent. Moving to the AL he would not be expected to have the same numbers (which I believe would be the case with Peavy). Our home stadium doesn't help a fly ball pitcher which is why I understand some of the skepticism while evaluating the trade.

My point in the three or four posts I made about Vazquez is the media has pegged him as a scapegoat when in reality the other 3 starters (Garland is the only one pitching at his potential) are performing at the same level (disappointing). I still think Vazquez can work his problems out - Cooper is a great coach and Vazquez has great stuff - he needs to stay out of that one inning..

I wouldn't expect low 3 ERAs in the AL but if he is healthy he hopefully will have a 4 ERA (give or take) next season and keep the team in the game in 25 of 32 starts and be a valuable contributor. Time will tell if this is possible.

soxinem1
08-22-2006, 05:18 PM
He (http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vazquja01.shtml) pitched excellent until the second half of 2004.

Vazquez was brought up at an age where most pitchers are in the low minors or juniors in college. His age 24 - 26 years were excellent and he had a excellent first half in New York (with a great recrod, ERA and ASG selection). His arm was tired during the second half.

If you look at his starts last season, he had 6 or 7 blow up starts and the rest good to excellent. Moving to the AL he would not be expected to have the same numbers (which I believe would be the case with Peavy). Our home stadium doesn't help a fly ball pitcher which is why I understand some of the skepticism while evaluating the trade.

My point in the three or four posts I made about Vazquez is the media has pegged him as a scapegoat when in reality the other 3 starters (Garland is the only one pitching at his potential) are performing at the same level (disappointing). I still think Vazquez can work his problems out - Cooper is a great coach and Vazquez has great stuff - he needs to stay out of that one inning..


I wouldn't expect low 3 ERAs in the AL but if he is healthy he hopefully will have a 4 ERA (give or take) next season and keep the team in the game in 25 of 32 starts and be a valuable contributor. Time will tell if this is possible.

When you make $11 million a year, much is expected of you, not mediocrity. You are talking about over two years of it, not a 5-6 bad start streak. I knew he had no toughness when the BoSox lit him up in the ALCS in '04. He was just serving 'em up.

He has to learn that stuff does not get you by, PITCHING does.

Mr. White Sox
08-22-2006, 05:38 PM
Whoops, you're right, I did misread his post.

Let's take a look at Javier's no-decisions and losses, shall we?
In one no-decision against KC, he gave up 2 ER in 7.0 IP. Hey, that's good!
He also pitched 1.2 IP scoreless out of the bullpen. Also good!

The rest:
5.2 IP, 7 H, 3 ER
6.0 IP, 10 H, 9 ER
6.0 IP, 11 H, 5 ER

One quality start in five no-decisions. Wow!

Javier has also pitched like absolute crap in his losses, having no quality starts in all eight games.

Vazquez has pitched only one quality start in the last two months (August 5th, June 20th).

I'm all for waiting to see if Javier improves, but as of now nobody can argue that he has been an above average pitcher this year. With the amount of run support he's been getting, all of those no-decisions aren't losses.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-22-2006, 05:47 PM
When you make $11 million a year, much is expected of you, not mediocrity. You are talking about over two years of it, not a 5-6 bad start streak. I knew he had no toughness when the BoSox lit him up in the ALCS in '04. He was just serving 'em up.

He has to learn that stuff does not get you by, PITCHING does.

The Yankees signed him (and many other pitchers) to ridiculous contracts. We are paying him nowhere near $11 million (with the Yankees / Arizona picking up a significant portion).

I agree he needs to improve if he wants a good contract after 2007 - hopefully continued work will do so.

Buerhle (Jul 2 - Aug 7), Contreras (August 2006), Garland (April - May 12) have also had several bad starts in a stretch.

Vazquez was not brought here to be an Ace. He was brought in because unlike El Duque he can answer the bell for 32 starts.

spiffie
08-23-2006, 12:16 AM
The Yankees signed him (and many other pitchers) to ridiculous contracts. We are paying him nowhere near $11 million (with the Yankees / Arizona picking up a significant portion).

I agree he needs to improve if he wants a good contract after 2007 - hopefully continued work will do so.

Buerhle (Jul 2 - Aug 7), Contreras (August 2006), Garland (April - May 12) have also had several bad starts in a stretch.

Vazquez was not brought here to be an Ace. He was brought in because unlike El Duque he can answer the bell for 32 starts.
We are paying him 19 million over this and next year. So on average he's a 9.5 million per year pitcher.

And no, he doesn't need to. AJ Burnett showed how much money stuff and potential and a .500 record is worth on the open market.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-23-2006, 12:30 AM
We are paying him 19 million over this and next year. So on average he's a 9.5 million per year pitcher.

And no, he doesn't need to. AJ Burnett showed how much money stuff and potential and a .500 record is worth on the open market.

It depends on who is doing the bidding. I doubt the Yankees bite again. Neither will the White Sox unless he has an amazing 2007. I expect a salary decrease into the $9 - 10 mil range / year in 2008 (accounting for inflation) unless he turns things around.

That leaves Boston, Anaheim and the Mets as three teams who have that kind of money to throw around.

Vazquez will probably best be served by playing for the Mets or another NL East team (except Philadelphia) with a great pitchers park to keep those just over the fence home runs from going out of the park.

The White Sox expectations for Vazquez was for him to round out the rotation, provide 32 starts and possibly have the upside to move up in the rotation. So far he has had some great outings and some terrible ones - pretty much par for the course on the White Sox this season.

spiffie
08-23-2006, 12:40 AM
It depends on who is doing the bidding. I doubt the Yankees bite again. Neither will the White Sox unless he has an amazing 2007. I expect a salary decrease into the $9 - 10 mil range / year in 2008 (accounting for inflation) unless he turns things around.

That leaves Boston, Anaheim and the Mets as three teams who have that kind of money to throw around.

Vazquez will probably best be served by playing for the Mets or another NL East team (except Philadelphia) with a great pitchers park to keep those just over the fence home runs from going out of the park.

The White Sox expectations for Vazquez was for him to round out the rotation, provide 32 starts and possibly have the upside to move up in the rotation. So far he has had some great outings and some terrible ones - pretty much par for the course on the White Sox this season.
I think you underestimate the amount of teams who would be interested in Vazquez. Toronto supposedly still has salary flexibility left. The Giants could be looking for someone to fill the Jason Schmidt void. The Phillies, despite the park issue, could be looking for someone. The Cubs could be in the running. The Cardinals look like they are having pitching issues. The Astros could have 3 huge holes that need filling by then.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-23-2006, 01:19 AM
I think you underestimate the amount of teams who would be interested in Vazquez. Toronto supposedly still has salary flexibility left. The Giants could be looking for someone to fill the Jason Schmidt void. The Phillies, despite the park issue, could be looking for someone. The Cubs could be in the running. The Cardinals look like they are having pitching issues. The Astros could have 3 huge holes that need filling by then.

Toronto has huge commitments to Ryan, Burnett, Glaus, Halladay plus Wells becomes a free agent.

The Giants always do crazy (stupid) **** on the free agent market so I could see them signing him.

He is a bad fit for Philly (namely their ballpark) though that hasn't stopped them in the past.

I guess he could go to the NL Central as well.

It is hard to speculate about what is going to happen in the 2007-08 offseason. My point was without an improvement in 2007, few if anyone will see "upside" in a pitcher who has logged as many ML innings as Vazquez has with average type performance over the final 3 1/2 years which means there will not be a huge bidding war.

I do think at minimum he will remain a dependable pitcher who will give a club 30 starts with a majority ranging from average through very good. I'm hoping he can improve somewhat the remainder of the year, have a fresh offseason and hopefully Cooper can coax more out of him in 2007 leaving Kenny with another option for 2008 (since Contreras and Garland are the only two locked beyond 2007).

Kenny has coveted Vazquez for sometime now and it is hard to question Kenny's judgment. I also liked Vazquez and thought it was a great move for 2006. I still think his innings are needed and if McCarthy was in the rotation for the entire season our bullpen would be ragged at this point and we would have a worse record than we do now. I am not all that sure McCarthy would have better numbers than any other pitcher either - relief pitchers should have lower ERAs than starters and McCarthy is just under 4.00.

Perhaps I am in the minority on this one. I think everyone on the staff has the ability to pitch better which is why we are all frustrated. If everyone was close to 4 (3.8 - 4.2) and Vazquez was at 5 - 6 that would be one thing but every starter is pitching bad (except Garland) since the All Star Break and Garland sucked to start the season.

spiffie
08-23-2006, 10:37 AM
Toronto has huge commitments to Ryan, Burnett, Glaus, Halladay plus Wells becomes a free agent.

The Giants always do crazy (stupid) **** on the free agent market so I could see them signing him.

He is a bad fit for Philly (namely their ballpark) though that hasn't stopped them in the past.

I guess he could go to the NL Central as well.

It is hard to speculate about what is going to happen in the 2007-08 offseason. My point was without an improvement in 2007, few if anyone will see "upside" in a pitcher who has logged as many ML innings as Vazquez has with average type performance over the final 3 1/2 years which means there will not be a huge bidding war.

I do think at minimum he will remain a dependable pitcher who will give a club 30 starts with a majority ranging from average through very good. I'm hoping he can improve somewhat the remainder of the year, have a fresh offseason and hopefully Cooper can coax more out of him in 2007 leaving Kenny with another option for 2008 (since Contreras and Garland are the only two locked beyond 2007).

Kenny has coveted Vazquez for sometime now and it is hard to question Kenny's judgment. I also liked Vazquez and thought it was a great move for 2006. I still think his innings are needed and if McCarthy was in the rotation for the entire season our bullpen would be ragged at this point and we would have a worse record than we do now. I am not all that sure McCarthy would have better numbers than any other pitcher either - relief pitchers should have lower ERAs than starters and McCarthy is just under 4.00.

Perhaps I am in the minority on this one. I think everyone on the staff has the ability to pitch better which is why we are all frustrated. If everyone was close to 4 (3.8 - 4.2) and Vazquez was at 5 - 6 that would be one thing but every starter is pitching bad (except Garland) since the All Star Break and Garland sucked to start the season.
I know Toronto has huge commitment issues, but I do remember they were supposed to be given something like $60 million over 3 years as a budget increase. Admittedly that might be all tied up. But if Wells doesn't resign that would free up some of that cash.

I could easily see an NL Central team going for him, since that entire division is just awful right now and doesn't look primed to improve much, and someone could easily look at Vazquez as the difference between 81-81 and 87-75, which for the next few years might be enough to win that division.

I agree he will likely continue to pitch this way, giving 30 starts and being good in a few, decent in some more, and awful in a few of them. And that's not bad. I just suspect that someone desperate for pitching will come along in the offseason after 07 and say "he has the stuff, look at his time in Montreal" and overpay because they need an arm that has the chance to be good. To me Vazquez is the type of pitcher you pay Paul Byrd money to, but I suspect someone will think higher of him than that.

And I agree, all of our rotation is capable of better. I worry that Freddy may be wearing down some, but Contreras, Buehrle, Garland can all be excellent. Garland has been excellent the last few months. But I fear that, at least in the AL, this is about the best you're going to get from Vazquez. Pitching in Montreal, with no pressure, and in the NL he looked good for a couple years, but we're going on 3 years now since he had a very good season, and I doubt its going to change much.

Tragg
08-24-2006, 06:19 PM
There's no point in moving Vasquez now...that's just selling at his lowest value...unless you think that the Mets will give us Millege, El D and a fair middle reliever. (which is what we traded for him).

Further, there is little evidence that Ozzie has any interest in giving McCarthy meaningful innings.