PDA

View Full Version : Re-evaluating the Vazquez trade


RockyMtnSoxFan
12-07-2006, 02:32 PM
Well, it's been about a year now since the trade for Vazquez. What does everybody think about it now?

I disliked the trade at the time. I was ready to see McCarthy in the rotation, and I thought it was a mistake to deal for an expensive, declining pitcher. But in light of the recent Garcia trade, I think it looks even worse. We traded Garcia, at least partially, just to get Brandon into the rotation. If that had happened a year ago, we would have saved a lot of money on Vazquez (even though the DBacks sent money in the trade, we still paid him quite a bit), we would have kept a decent middle reliever (Vizcaino was better in the bullpen than McCarthy was), we would have had another good outfield prospect, who could have helped Anderson in center, and McCarthy would have another year of experience as a starter.

Now after hearing about the failed Garland deal, I'm starting to wonder what the heck KW is thinking.

chisoxmike
12-07-2006, 02:44 PM
I wasn't a big fan of it then, and I'm not a fan of it now. I've always thought Vazquez was an overrated .500 pitcher. I wasn't proved wrong in 2006.

palehozenychicty
12-07-2006, 02:46 PM
In retrospect, it was a waste of money and players. I definitely would not have minded Young spelling Anderson.

veeter
12-07-2006, 02:47 PM
All very good points but, I don't think we really get hurt unless Chris Young turns into a good major leaguer. He still might, though.

1917
12-07-2006, 02:47 PM
For our #5 starter I liked it...and his #'s were worthy of a #4/5 starter this year. I didn't mind it then or now. I never mind giving up prospects for proven MLB talent.

palehozenychicty
12-07-2006, 02:50 PM
All very good points but, I don't think we really get hurt unless Chris Young turns into a good major leaguer. He still might, though.

True dat. Because Vizcaino was the last righty out of the pen anyway, and El Duque can only give you three months including the postseason of decent pitching. I think the Dbacks are going to be really really good very soon. They have some impressive young players.

veeter
12-07-2006, 02:52 PM
What if Javy wins 18 for the Sox this year? It could happen also. (If he's not traded)

SouthSide_HitMen
12-07-2006, 03:14 PM
All very good points but, I don't think we really get hurt unless Chris Young turns into a good major leaguer. He still might, though.

For our #5 starter I liked it...and his #'s were worthy of a #4/5 starter this year. I didn't mind it then or now. I never mind giving up prospects for proven MLB talent.

I am in this camp. I like Vazquez and think he will be an important key to 2007. He had four (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5947/splits;_ylt=AiUTvWW4.lULx.ij9YpTLEGFCLcF) very good months last season (Apr, May, Aug & September) and if he can work into the 7th / 8th inning he could develop into our stopper.

It is not like any of our pitchers last year (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/chw/stats/bycategory?cat=Pitching) were far better than Vazquez yet I thought he received unfair criticism at times. His ERA was comparable to all but Contreras, his Ratio was the same as team leaders Contreras and Garcia and he had the best strikeout ratio on the team.

He will also be helped out if Mackowiak stays in the infield / corner OF spots this season. I thought it was a good transition into the AL for Vazquez and I expect him to improve on last season's totals.

SABRSox
12-07-2006, 03:19 PM
If Vasquez inevitably lands us Pelfrey and Milledge, I like the Vasquez deal a lot. Granted, Milledge would be a downgrade from Young, but Pelfrey's about as good as it gets when it comes to up and coming pitchers.

Ol' No. 2
12-07-2006, 03:57 PM
I am in this camp. I like Vazquez and think he will be an important key to 2007. He had four (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5947/splits;_ylt=AiUTvWW4.lULx.ij9YpTLEGFCLcF) very good months last season (Apr, May, Aug & September) and if he can work into the 7th / 8th inning he could develop into our stopper.

It is not like any of our pitchers last year (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/chw/stats/bycategory?cat=Pitching) were far better than Vazquez yet I thought he received unfair criticism at times. His ERA was comparable to all but Contreras, his Ratio was the same as team leaders Contreras and Garcia and he had the best strikeout ratio on the team.

He will also be helped out if Mackowiak stays in the infield / corner OF spots this season. I thought it was a good transition into the AL for Vazquez and I expect him to improve on last season's totals.I'm with you. People seem to just want to remember his mid-season funk, but he was absolutely lights-out the first couple of months. Remember when he was voted the most likely to throw a no-no? I think he'll come back strong this season.

santo=dorf
12-07-2006, 04:02 PM
What I hate most about the trade is the same people constantly spelling his name incorrectly.:angry:

V-a-Zq-u-e-z.

Chisox003
12-07-2006, 04:04 PM
If Vasquez inevitably lands us Pelfrey and Milledge, I like the Vasquez deal a lot. Granted, Milledge would be a downgrade from Young, but Pelfrey's about as good as it gets when it comes to up and coming pitchers.
If Freddy Garcia could only get us 2 minor league pitchers, what makes you think Vazquez is going to get THAT? No way in hell man.

That said, I'm glad it was Garcia that got dealt. Vaz will be huge next year.

caulfield12
12-07-2006, 04:05 PM
The question is, would the White Sox have made the playoffs with Young playing CF in the 2nd half (assuming Anderson would have gone down with CY a viable replacement option), and El Duque and Vizcaino in the pen?

Interesting hypothetical. I guess it's easy to say yes, and say the trade sucks.

We'll know much more about it at the end of this season.

The Wells&Fogg/Ritchie deal looked a lot worse in 2002 and 2003 than today.

And even losing Foulke got us Cotts, who was a key in 2005.

I wonder if the Sox will show any interest in Foulke now that he has declined arbitration? Probably still wants closer money though.

maurice
12-07-2006, 04:05 PM
What if Javy wins 18 for the Sox this year?

Or if Floyd ends up being a quality MLB starter. Or if Gio ends up being a quality MLB starter. Or if CYoung turns into Jeremy Reed (he was injured early in '07 and did little for the D'Backs). Way too many variables at this point.

Losing Vizcaino left the pen shorthanded, but KW should have been able to fill that need before the season started. Instead, it took him months to upgrade the pen.

would the White Sox have made the playoffs with Young playing CF in the 2nd half (assuming Anderson would have gone down with CY a viable replacement option), and El Duque and Vizcaino in the pen?

Anderson and Young were pretty much identical in the 2nd-half, though Young got fewer ABs on a much worse team.
Duque would not have pitched out of the BP and probably wouldn't have fit into the payroll.

fquaye149
12-07-2006, 04:06 PM
What I hate most about the trade is the same people constantly spelling his name incorrectly.:angry:

V-a-Zq-u-e-z.

Yeah man that was totally worse than those times he would blow the game in the 6th and 7th innings after being lights out the first 5 or 6.

****ing bad spelling man! The worst part about baseball!

areilly
12-07-2006, 04:20 PM
I thought it was a good transition into the AL for Vazquez and I expect him to improve on last season's totals.

But he already was an AL pitcher in 2004 and put up numbers remarkably similar to what he had in 2006.

JB98
12-07-2006, 04:24 PM
I wasn't a big fan of it then, and I'm not a fan of it now. I've always thought Vazquez was an overrated .500 pitcher. I wasn't proved wrong in 2006.

You and me both. I could have written this post myself.

Jurr
12-07-2006, 04:37 PM
They guy has been bouncing around AL/NL for years, now. He hasn't had a chance to settle into an area yet, as far as I know. He did get that chance in Montreal, and we know how good he was.

New York was a quick stop, because he couldn't immediately dominate like Yankees fans and ownership expect. Off to Arizona. Off to Chicago. See a pattern?

The guy's a good pitcher. Maybe...HOPEFULLY...a second year in one location lets him get a feel for the team, the opponents, and his pitching coach.

You can't tell me that getting tossed around left and right wouldn't mess with anyone's psyche.

pearso66
12-07-2006, 05:29 PM
They guy has been bouncing around AL/NL for years, now. He hasn't had a chance to settle into an area yet, as far as I know. He did get that chance in Montreal, and we know how good he was.

New York was a quick stop, because he couldn't immediately dominate like Yankees fans and ownership expect. Off to Arizona. Off to Chicago. See a pattern?

The guy's a good pitcher. Maybe...HOPEFULLY...a second year in one location lets him get a feel for the team, the opponents, and his pitching coach.

You can't tell me that getting tossed around left and right wouldn't mess with anyone's psyche.

I had never thought of it htat way, but it does make some sense. I for one, am glad that it was Garcia that was traded instead of Vazquez. If they can get over his 5th inning thing, he's easily the ace of our staff.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-07-2006, 06:10 PM
But he already was an AL pitcher in 2004 and put up numbers remarkably similar to what he had in 2006.

He was thought / rumored to have been injured in the second half of 2004. If you recall, he made the All Star Team in 2004 (first half numbers - 1.15 Ratio, 3.56 ERA, 95/32 K/BB, 10-5).

The question is, would the White Sox have made the playoffs with Young playing CF in the 2nd half (assuming Anderson would have gone down with CY a viable replacement option), and El Duque and Vizcaino in the pen?

Are you assuming McCarthy would have taken Vazquez' 32 starts?

El Duque was terrible in Arizona. he bounced back at Shea but was greatly helped playing in the horse**** NL East and their pitcher biased parks (Shea, Marlins, RFK & Atlanta). He gave up 13 runs in 7 innings in his two starts in Philadelphia. I think El Duque would have been exposed in the AL / at Comiskey. I do agree Vizcaino would have helped in the pen.

buehrle4cy05
12-07-2006, 06:26 PM
If Vasquez inevitably lands us Pelfrey and Milledge, I like the Vasquez deal a lot. Granted, Milledge would be a downgrade from Young, but Pelfrey's about as good as it gets when it comes to up and coming pitchers.

I would be ecstatic if this deal happens. IMO, we'd keep Pelfrey and then flip Milledge somewhere for more young pitching.

White Sox Randy
12-07-2006, 06:48 PM
After the Todd Ritchie trade, the worst trade Kenny ever made.

It cost the Sox the playoffs and possibly another World Series last year.

And, unless he gets a pot of gold when he tradeds Javy, it will be even worse in the future.

TheOldRoman
12-07-2006, 07:40 PM
After the Todd Ritchie trade, the worst trade Kenny ever made.

It cost the Sox the playoffs and possibly another World Series last year.

And, unless he gets a pot of gold when he tradeds Javy, it will be even worse in the future.
:rolleyes:
First of all, we have Vazquez for 2 more years. He did improve over the season, and he is still a work in progress.

The Todd Ritchie trade was not that bad. Kenny traded crap + poop for ****. Pittsburgh only came out on top because they got the bigger pile.

As for that trade costing us a championship, that is too dumb to even respond to.

caulfield12
12-07-2006, 07:47 PM
After the Todd Ritchie trade, the worst trade Kenny ever made.

It cost the Sox the playoffs and possibly another World Series last year.

And, unless he gets a pot of gold when he tradeds Javy, it will be even worse in the future.


Kip Wells as #3 and Josh Fogg as #4 >>>> Garland and Garcia?

Your what hurts?

eastchicagosoxfan
12-07-2006, 07:51 PM
I'll just throw in my two cents worth, and echo other posters. Vazquez was a fifth starter last year. He was maddening to watch, because he clearly had number one stuff, albeit inconsistently. ( I see a bit of a parallel between Javy and Rex Grossman, but that's just me ) Until Young becomes a bonafide major league player, the sox received a potentially great pitcher, who's already an established player, for a middle reliever and a question mark in Young. I also expect Vazquez to improve in 2007.

Jurr
12-07-2006, 08:49 PM
I'll just throw in my two cents worth, and echo other posters. Vazquez was a fifth starter last year. He was maddening to watch, because he clearly had number one stuff, albeit inconsistently. ( I see a bit of a parallel between Javy and Rex Grossman, but that's just me ) Until Young becomes a bonafide major league player, the sox received a potentially great pitcher, who's already an established player, for a middle reliever and a question mark in Young. I also expect Vazquez to improve in 2007.
People also pissed and moaned when we traded away Jeremy Reed. I don't recall Reed being the second coming of Tony Gwynn yet.

eastchicagosoxfan
12-07-2006, 09:01 PM
People also pissed and moaned when we traded away Jeremy Reed. I don't recall Reed being the second coming of Tony Gwynn yet.

Exactly! I will now contradict myself. View these players as commodities. There is risk in trading any comodity. Current performance is no guarentee of future performance. Another point too. Trades are designed to benefit both parties. I think KW said that earlier this week. Too often, people want to see a steal, a something for nothing type of deal. If none of the Sox prospects pan out, the Sox system may get a bad rap.

Jurr
12-07-2006, 09:19 PM
Exactly! I will now contradict myself. View these players as commodities. There is risk in trading any comodity. Current performance is no guarentee of future performance. Another point too. Trades are designed to benefit both parties. I think KW said that earlier this week. Too often, people want to see a steal, a something for nothing type of deal. If none of the Sox prospects pan out, the Sox system may get a bad rap.
That happens to every team in every sport. Part of the game. The only way you counteract the bottom end of the deal is to A.)Have a great training staff to keep guys healthy and B.)Have talented coaches that can maximize the players' talents.

I think we've come a long way in the B category. The A category??? Fuhgettaboutit. Herm's the man.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-07-2006, 09:19 PM
Cooper will do for Javy what he did for Contreras and Garland. Almost everyone ripping Javy wanted Garland launched not so long ago too. I always defended Garland, and Cooper and Javy are going to do it again. You don't turn a starter around inside of a year. Give Coop a chance.

eastchicagosoxfan
12-07-2006, 09:26 PM
That happens to every team in every sport. Part of the game. The only way you counteract the bottom end of the deal is to A.)Have a great training staff to keep guys healthy and B.)Have talented coaches that can maximize the players' talents.

I think we've come a long way in the B category. The A category??? Fuhgettaboutit. Herm's the man.
Herm is the man! He's actually due a good rehab project.

Save McCuddy's
12-07-2006, 11:07 PM
Anderson and Young were pretty much identical in the 2nd-half, though Young got fewer ABs on a much worse team.
Duque would not have pitched out of the BP and probably wouldn't have fit into the payroll.

At $4.625 how would El Duque not have fit in the payroll? We took on salary in that trade. The D'Backs then turned El Duque into their closer. Had anyone known you couls get Julio for him, I don't think we would have made that trade.

Jurr
12-07-2006, 11:10 PM
At $4.625 how would El Duque not have fit in the payroll? We took on salary in that trade. The D'Backs then turned El Duque into their closer. Had anyone known you couls get Julio for him, I don't think we would have made that trade.
The Sox were lucky that they got the Boston miracle out of El Duque, not to mention the clutch pitching in game 3 of the WS. The guy's good for a short stint, and he's back on the DL. Keeping him would've been very questionable.

spiffie
12-08-2006, 10:13 AM
The problem with the Vazquez trade is that it's a bad trade even if Chris Young sucks and never does anything and if El Duque's arm had fallen off in April 2006. We are investing $30 million in a purely mediocre pitcher. He's our version of the Ted Lilly deal or Gil Meche. Had we simply traded Hernandez for prospects of any sort last year, kept Vizcaino in the pen, and kept Young in the minors we would have had:

-McCarthy as the #5
-Young still available either as a trade chip or a backup OF
-$10 million to spend to fill other holes.
-Vizcaino in the bullpen

I can't help but think that would have been better not only for 2006, but going forward in 2007 and 2008 and beyond. We ended up using a lot of resources that could have been better allocated for a pitcher we didn't really need.

RockyMtnSoxFan
12-08-2006, 02:14 PM
The problem with the Vazquez trade is that it's a bad trade even if Chris Young sucks and never does anything and if El Duque's arm had fallen off in April 2006. We are investing $30 million in a purely mediocre pitcher. He's our version of the Ted Lilly deal or Gil Meche. Had we simply traded Hernandez for prospects of any sort last year, kept Vizcaino in the pen, and kept Young in the minors we would have had:

-McCarthy as the #5
-Young still available either as a trade chip or a backup OF
-$10 million to spend to fill other holes.
-Vizcaino in the bullpen

I can't help but think that would have been better not only for 2006, but going forward in 2007 and 2008 and beyond. We ended up using a lot of resources that could have been better allocated for a pitcher we didn't really need.

This is exactly how I feel. It may be true that Vazquez is a decent #5, albeit with #1 potential which he can't seem to harness, but we are paying him as a #2. And I think if you disregard the future impacts of the trade (which I think are negative on the Sox side), the deal was a mistake even for the short term of last year. It appeared that way at the time, and it is even more clear now.

maurice
12-08-2006, 02:43 PM
Okay, I'll look at it again considering 2006 in isolation:

KW felt that McCarthy wasn't ready to spend the entire season as a starter. He may have been correct. In the meanwhile, he did a decent job out of the bullpen and gained experience. There is no proof that McCarthy would have outperformed Vazquez in the rotation. Vazquez wasn't terrible in 2006, especially not for a #5 starter. At times, he was very good. Plus, Ozzie mismanaged him during a stretch of games when he was predictably great at the start of the game and predictably crappy at the end.

Young would be available to trade, but Garcia / Vazquez would not be available to trade. I think KW planned to trade one of them at the 2006 deadline and then move McCarthy to the rotation, but nothing materialized. Instead, he traded Garcia post-season for prospects. He probably feels that the 2 pitching prosepects he got from the Phillies > Young.

I already conceded that Vizcaino in the bullpen was a loss, not because he was an irreplaceably good reliever, but rather because KW failed to replace him pre-season. So, looking at the trade in isolation and only looking at 2006, I still don't think it was a bad deal. However, I do think that KW failed to follow up properly, which may have cost us a playoff spot. I don't think it had anything to do with lack of resources, but rather lack of a specific trade that KW wanted to make. Hopefully, there won't be a repeat performance this offseason.

jabrch
12-08-2006, 02:45 PM
Vazquez was a #2 or maybe a #1 during his time in Montreal.

There is no reason to believe a change of scenery might not have helped him.

spiffie
12-08-2006, 02:51 PM
Vazquez was a #2 or maybe a #1 during his time in Montreal.

There is no reason to believe a change of scenery might not have helped him.
I think that's a fair consideration after change #1. But when he's on his fourth team in four years, it would seem like that issue has kind of played itself out. The only way I could see it possibly coming into play is if he were traded to some backwater also-ran team like the Expos were, then maybe he could be comfortable.

Flight #24
12-08-2006, 03:05 PM
I think that's a fair consideration after change #1. But when he's on his fourth team in four years, it would seem like that issue has kind of played itself out. The only way I could see it possibly coming into play is if he were traded to some backwater also-ran team like the Expos were, then maybe he could be comfortable.

IMO that's a bit unfair. While he has technically jumped around, only once has it been performance related.

Montreal->NYY: as free agent
NYY->Arizona: pseudo performance (traded for Randy Johnson)
Arizona-> Chi: at his request, demanded a trade

This isn't a guy who's struggled and turned into a journeyman.

California Sox
12-08-2006, 03:08 PM
I was against this trade, but I've promised not to rehash that, so I'll go to the subject matter of the thread which is "in light of the Garcia trade, how does it make the Vazquez trade look now?"

Both Vazquez in '05 and Garcia in '06 had mediocre years with strong final months. Vazquez had the superior velocity, but Garcia picked up a new pitch, which may give reason to believe his strong finish was more than a fluke. Vazquez fetched Chris Young, a top 25 type prospect, Vizcaino, a serviceable middle reliever (who had gotten Milwaukee a near-All Star in Carlos Lee), and El Duque an erratic starter. Garcia fetched Gio, a top 75 type prospect, and Gavin Floyd, a former prospect who had imploded at AAA and in the majors and is at best a project. (Recall that Thornton was acquired for Borchard, not a 200-inning pitcher.) So, for the Vazquez trade to look good now one has to believe that Vazquez > Garcia by more than Young, Vizcaino, Duque > Gio and Floyd.

I will concede that Vazquez probably has more value than Freddie had on the open market. (A drop in velocity and an affinity for the pipe will do that to a guy.) But, personally, I liked Freddie more. It was ugly a lot of the time but at least he had some balls. Vazquez got about five big outs all season. And I believe Young >>>>> Gio. (AAA .276 21 77 in 400AB with .896 OPS vs. AA 7-12 4.66 166 SO in 154 innings but 81 BB and led league with 24 HR allowed.) Obviously, if Floyd returns to the level he was at in 2003, the trade looks better. But it's hard to pay 2003 price for his 2006 performance.

spiffie
12-08-2006, 03:08 PM
IMO that's a bit unfair. While he has technically jumped around, only once has it been performance related.

Montreal->NYY: as free agent
NYY->Arizona: pseudo performance (traded for Randy Johnson)
Arizona-> Chi: at his request, demanded a trade

This isn't a guy who's struggled and turned into a journeyman.
True (though he has struggled since leaving Montreal, not once topping the league average in ERA since then), but the OP was arguing that the Sox could have assumed a change of scenery would help. I think if that were the case it would have kicked in at one of his previous stops.

jabrch
12-08-2006, 03:21 PM
I think that's a fair consideration after change #1. But when he's on his fourth team in four years, it would seem like that issue has kind of played itself out. The only way I could see it possibly coming into play is if he were traded to some backwater also-ran team like the Expos were, then maybe he could be comfortable.

Really? He was good in Mont. He went to NY and was bad in his first AL year. He got shipped west for Randy Johnson. He hated it - and wanted out of the west, so he's here. You make it sound like he was a miserable failure and got run out of four cities. I think Vazquez has a good chance of being effective this year, at least as effective as our ace Jon Garland (he of the 4.50 ERA).

SOX ADDICT '73
12-08-2006, 03:27 PM
In year one with Don Cooper:

Garcia = nothing special
Contreras = meh
Vazquez = mediocre at best

In year two with Cooper:

Garcia = World Series Champ
Contreras = World Series Champ
Vazquez = ????????????

spiffie
12-08-2006, 03:28 PM
Really? He was good in Mont. He went to NY and was bad in his first AL year. He got shipped west for Randy Johnson. He hated it - and wanted out of the west, so he's here. You make it sound like he was a miserable failure and got run out of four cities. I think Vazquez has a good chance of being effective this year, at least as effective as our ace Jon Garland (he of the 4.50 ERA).
No, he has just sucked in three cities. Actually sucked is too harsh. He's been completely mediocre in three cities. I expect him to continue to be mediocre this year, putting up an ERA hovering just above the league average.

In a funny way this offseason craziness in the FA market is the best thing to happen to Javy, as suddenly when you look at Ted Lilly and Gil Meche and Adam Eaton, Javy is no longer overpaid. The going rate for a .500 pitcher who is going to give you a middle-of-the-road season is now about $10 million a year.

skobabe8
12-08-2006, 03:30 PM
I like it then, I like it now. Javy's leash is shorter than anyone else on the staff with the fans and media. His numbers prove otherwise. I think he's going to be a real nice guy to have going every 5th day in '07.

SOX ADDICT '73
12-08-2006, 03:32 PM
I think he's going to be a real nice guy to have going every 5th day in '07.
So who's your #4? McCarthy?

gobears1987
12-08-2006, 04:24 PM
The trade looks like a VERY bad move on KW's part. It was his first bad move in a while. It looks like he made another bad move this week in trading the wrong pitcher.

He should've spent Vaz the Spaz away, not Freddy.

gobears1987
12-08-2006, 04:25 PM
For our #5 starter I liked it...and his #'s were worthy of a #4/5 starter this year. I didn't mind it then or now. I never mind giving up prospects for proven MLB talent.Proven talent LOL.

All Vaz has proven is that he is an overrated and overpaid mental case.

gobears1987
12-08-2006, 04:27 PM
What if Javy wins 18 for the Sox this year? It could happen also. (If he's not traded)
It can happen, but I think everyone just about agrees it won't happen.

I hate to say it, but I'm turning my TV off after the 5th when he pitches. It's really bad when you're at Comiskey and EVERY PERSON there except Ozzie knew doom was impending. Both times I saw Vaz pitch, he blew up in the 6th. Everyone knew it would happen.

skobabe8
12-08-2006, 05:16 PM
So who's your #4? McCarthy?

I dont think I ever said he is a #5 starter. I said he pitches every 5th day.

skobabe8
12-08-2006, 05:25 PM
Proven talent LOL.

All Vaz has proven is that he is an overrated and overpaid mental case.

Man I wish you became a Tigers fan. A quick look at their stats from last year easily shows that both guys were very close to equal. Not the huge mistake you say it is. Do that next time you open your mouth.

jabrch
12-08-2006, 05:34 PM
Both times I saw Vaz pitch, he blew up in the 6th. Everyone knew it would happen.

Well if both times that gobears1987 saw him pitch he had a bad 6th inning, that must be the case.

Daver
12-08-2006, 06:07 PM
Well if both times that gobears1987 saw him pitch he had a bad 6th inning, that must be the case.

His struggles might be linked to his habit of telegraphing his fastball in late innings.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 06:09 PM
The trade looks like a VERY bad move on KW's part. It was his first bad move in a while. It looks like he made another bad move this week in trading the wrong pitcher.

He should've spent Vaz the Spaz away, not Freddy.


Are you willing to re-sign Freddy (multi-year) after this season for $12-13 million or would you rather control the rights to Vazquez for one more year at less money?

KW needs some cost certainty and a "guarantee" that the pitcher would be around in 2008. He doesn't/didn't have that with Garcia or Buehrle.

Put it this way....we could have traded Vazquez now, gotten even less in return, then turned around and be forced to sign Gil Meche, Adam Eaton or Vincente Padilla to replace Garcia AFTER 2007 at even more than Freddy would have made in the 2007 season.

We get worse AND more expensive payroll simultaneously. Not logical.

Vazquez has more upside at this point.

daveeym
12-08-2006, 06:54 PM
The only way it turns out to be a horrible trade is if Young gets to that above average, potential star, level or above. Considering Javy's at the bottom of the rotation and money came our way his ups balance out his downs and as it stands now I'd say he's upgraded the organization. The only thing he removed from this team is potential trade bait.

champagne030
12-08-2006, 07:08 PM
Are you willing to re-sign Freddy (multi-year) after this season for $12-13 million or would you rather control the rights to Vazquez for one more year at less money?

KW needs some cost certainty and a "guarantee" that the pitcher would be around in 2008. He doesn't/didn't have that with Garcia or Buehrle.

Put it this way....we could have traded Vazquez now, gotten even less in return, then turned around and be forced to sign Gil Meche, Adam Eaton or Vincente Padilla to replace Garcia AFTER 2007 at even more than Freddy would have made in the 2007 season.

We get worse AND more expensive payroll simultaneously. Not logical.

Vazquez has more upside at this point.

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have received less in return for Javy vs. Freddy. Also, you do realize Javy is probably going to make $14M in '08? He's making $12.5M this season and will get a bump in arbitration next season.

RockyMtnSoxFan
12-08-2006, 07:19 PM
I agree that at this point it was better to trade Freddy than Vazquez. However, my point is that it was a bad idea at the time to trade for Vazquez, and it looks just as bad or worse now. I don't think whatever "experience" McCarthy gained from the bullpen was all that useful, because he didn't have the room to make mistakes or the time to get into a groove; actually, I think it was more damaging than anything. And he showed at the end of the season that, despite not being prepared physically or mentally as a SP in 2006, he could perform very well in that role. So I think that McCarthy would have been at least as good as Vazquez, for about 5% of the cost. Plus, I think Vizcaino would have been better out ot the pen than McCarthy was. So that is just how the deal affected the 2006 season. I think El Duque still could have been traded for prospects, and Young may or may not have had an impact at the ML level, but they would have improved the future outlook of the club as well. To me, the trade hurt the team in the short term and the long term.

Jurr
12-08-2006, 07:47 PM
Proven talent LOL.

All Vaz has proven is that he is an overrated and overpaid mental case.
The guy hasn't been able to stay on a team in the same league since Montreal. Maybe, just maybe he returns to form when he gets comfortable.

soxinem1
12-10-2006, 09:39 PM
:rolleyes:
First of all, we have Vazquez for 2 more years. He did improve over the season, and he is still a work in progress.

The Todd Ritchie trade was not that bad. Kenny traded crap + poop for ****. Pittsburgh only came out on top because they got the bigger pile.

As for that trade costing us a championship, that is too dumb to even respond to.

How can a guy making over $12 million a year and NINE years of MLB experience be a 'work in progress'? I mean, how long will it take for him to get his act together and develop some consistency? He's made over $45 million in his career, so what motivation does he have?

I agree in the long run with your Ritchie trade assessment, but Fogg and Wells on the 2002-2003 White Sox probably mean at least one division title.

TheOldRoman
12-10-2006, 10:22 PM
How can a guy making over $12 million a year and NINE years of MLB experience be a 'work in progress'? I mean, how long will it take for him to get his act together and develop some consistency? He's made over $45 million in his career, so what motivation does he have?

I agree in the long run with your Ritchie trade assessment, but Fogg and Wells on the 2002-2003 White Sox probably mean at least one division title.
1.Wells and Fogg - they sucked in PITTSBURGH, in the crappy NL. I don't think they would have made a bit of difference for the Sox playing in the AL.

2.I meant Javy was a work in progress for Coop. As we point out often, Contreras was working with Coop a whole year before it sunk in. Only a moron would tell you Vazquez doesn't have the "stuff". There is a difference between having stuff and having the ability to dominate with it. Vazquez can dominate at times. It is a matter of him figuring it out, or having the right teacher to help him figure it out. As Daver said, he was tipping his pitches late in games. That creates bad innings, which create mental hurdles, which create more bad innings. I can't tell you how to fix Vazquez. If I could, I would be making a lot more money than I am. I can tell you, however, that Coop has turned careers around before, and that Vazquez was a lot better at the end of the year than in July. I am not going to call the trade a steal for the Sox, but you can't judge Vazquez just yet. I think he will come up big in 07. If you would have taken a poll on WSI about Contreras in mid July of 05, 90% of the people would have wanted him gone.

goon
12-10-2006, 10:55 PM
The trade looks like a VERY bad move on KW's part. It was his first bad move in a while. It looks like he made another bad move this week in trading the wrong pitcher.

He should've spent Vaz the Spaz away, not Freddy.


i like vazquez. in fact, i think he's just as good as freddy and better in a number of ways. he's great defensively, one of the best in the game, he actually HOLDS runners on base. he's in shape, he isn't lazy, doesn't call out his teammates after games...

though i think as far as "stuff" goes, vazquez is right up there with contreras. everyone of his pitches has significant movement, he eats innings and is easily the best strikeout SP on the staff. there was a stat displayed in one of the games last year that showed the SO leaders over the past five years and i believe javy was third on the list, behind randy johnson and someone else (forgive me, i tried to look it up, but with no luck.)

the only problem that javy has is that he stays around the strikezone so much that he will often leave something hanging and the hitters will attack. yet, i'll take that over a guy who walks a lot of batters.

he was frustrating to watch at times last year, but be honest, freddy was pretty much unbearable until he started throwing that splitter. UNBEARABLE. the white sox did the right thing in keeping vazquez and hopefully he gets his stuff together and has a great year and signs an extension. i really like this guy, i just hope his best years aren't behind him.

soxinem1
12-10-2006, 10:59 PM
1.Wells and Fogg - they sucked in PITTSBURGH, in the crappy NL. I don't think they would have made a bit of difference for the Sox playing in the AL.

2.I meant Javy was a work in progress for Coop. As we point out often, Contreras was working with Coop a whole year before it sunk in. Only a moron would tell you Vazquez doesn't have the "stuff". There is a difference between having stuff and having the ability to dominate with it. Vazquez can dominate at times. It is a matter of him figuring it out, or having the right teacher to help him figure it out. As Daver said, he was tipping his pitches late in games. That creates bad innings, which create mental hurdles, which create more bad innings. I can't tell you how to fix Vazquez. If I could, I would be making a lot more money than I am. I can tell you, however, that Coop has turned careers around before, and that Vazquez was a lot better at the end of the year than in July. I am not going to call the trade a steal for the Sox, but you can't judge Vazquez just yet. I think he will come up big in 07. If you would have taken a poll on WSI about Contreras in mid July of 05, 90% of the people would have wanted him gone.

They didn't suck in 2002 and 2003. They combined for 24 wins in 2002 and 20 in 2003 for crummy PIT teams, well over what the four and five starters did for us both of those years.

Contreras was an unproved commodity in 2005, and still is. He's only had three full big league seasons. Vazquez has been around for quite awhile.

Coop is not going to fix everyone, he can only fix pitchers who have that desire.

All I know is that Fogg won exactly as many games as Vazquez did this year for about 10.5 million less for a far worse team, with far worse stuff. If Vazquez had half the heart Fogg does, he's be a Cy Young candidate every year.

Odds are Vazquez still doesn't win over 12 in 2007 too.

jabrch
12-10-2006, 11:10 PM
Odds are Vazquez still doesn't win over 12 in 2007 too.

I wish there were really odds on that. I'd take that in a HEARTBEAT if there were decent odds. Javier has great stuff. It wouldn't surprise me to see him effective most of next year. Sure - it's no lock. But to say the odds are against him winning 12 games, on a team that plans to win more than 90 is a bit overly pessimistic.

jabrch
12-10-2006, 11:12 PM
The guy hasn't been able to stay on a team in the same league since Montreal. Maybe, just maybe he returns to form when he gets comfortable.


Hasn't been able to stay on one team? It wasn't his fault the Yanks traded him to somewhere he didn't want to be. If it weren't for that, he might very well still be a Yankee. Nobody has dumped him for performance reasons. The Yanks got Randy Johnson and he left AZ because he wanted out.

TheOldRoman
12-10-2006, 11:20 PM
They didn't suck in 2002 and 2003. They combined for 24 wins in 2002 and 20 in 2003 for crummy PIT teams, well over what the four and five starters did for us both of those years.

Contreras was an unproved commodity in 2005, and still is. He's only had three full big league seasons. Vazquez has been around for quite awhile.

Coop is not going to fix everyone, he can only fix pitchers who have that desire.

All I know is that Fogg won exactly as many games as Vazquez did this year for about 10.5 million less for a far worse team, with far worse stuff. If Vazquez had half the heart Fogg does, he's be a Cy Young candidate every year.

Odds are Vazquez still doesn't win over 12 in 2007 too.
Questioning his heart is really dumb. Question his head? Fine, but you can't question his heart just because he hasn't figured out how to dominate regularly. Fogg is garbage, in a garbage league. Put him in the AL, and his ERA is 6+ last year, regardless of how many wins he gets. What exactly showed you that Fogg has such heart? Being a ****ty pitcher in the worst division in baseball? Pitching meaningless games for the zero pressure Pirates?

It is ridiculous to claim Vazquez doesn't have the desire to get better. What is this based off of? Any quotes? I remember him being really upset with himself after bad starts. Vazquez did take Coop's advice about moving to the other side of the rubber, and it helped him. He obviously has things to fix, bust most of the transition is repetitive - doing it over and over again until it is a rhythm. He has to let Coop's words sink in so his new mechanic/philosophy are second nature. It took Jose a long time to trust his stuff and throw like Coop wanted him to. It wasn't enough to have Coop visit the mound and remind him, Jose didn't blossom until it became second nature. You can't judge Vazquez yet.

As for these odds, are you an oddsmaker now? Did you get those odds from the same place you got the quotes where Javy said he didn't care to win? :rolleyes:I would take those odds anyday.

TheOldRoman
12-10-2006, 11:22 PM
I wish there were really odds on that. I'd take that in a HEARTBEAT if there were decent odds. Javier has great stuff. It wouldn't surprise me to see him effective most of next year. Sure - it's no lock. But to say the odds are against him winning 12 games, on a team that plans to win more than 90 is a bit overly pessimistic.
In fact, I will go out on a limb and say he will win 18+. Not only that, but he will start either the first or second playoff game for the Sox.

jabrch
12-10-2006, 11:26 PM
In fact, I will go out on a limb and say he will win 18+. Not only that, but he will start either the first or second playoff game for the Sox.


Maybe that's a reach too - but I think we have set a very wide range that he is highly likely to fall into.

soxinem1
12-11-2006, 12:05 AM
Questioning his heart is really dumb. Question his head? Fine, but you can't question his heart just because he hasn't figured out how to dominate regularly. Fogg is garbage, in a garbage league. Put him in the AL, and his ERA is 6+ last year, regardless of how many wins he gets. What exactly showed you that Fogg has such heart? Being a ****ty pitcher in the worst division in baseball? Pitching meaningless games for the zero pressure Pirates?

It is ridiculous to claim Vazquez doesn't have the desire to get better. What is this based off of? Any quotes? I remember him being really upset with himself after bad starts. Vazquez did take Coop's advice about moving to the other side of the rubber, and it helped him. He obviously has things to fix, bust most of the transition is repetitive - doing it over and over again until it is a rhythm. He has to let Coop's words sink in so his new mechanic/philosophy are second nature. It took Jose a long time to trust his stuff and throw like Coop wanted him to. It wasn't enough to have Coop visit the mound and remind him, Jose didn't blossom until it became second nature. You can't judge Vazquez yet.

As for these odds, are you an oddsmaker now? Did you get those odds from the same place you got the quotes where Javy said he didn't care to win? :rolleyes:I would take those odds anyday.

How can you defend a pitcher who just does not get it? I'll say it AGAIN, if he hasn't gotten the idea in nine, count them, nine seasons, what possible strategy can you come up with other than 'Coop will fix it' or 'Coop will get through to him'? That is BS. When is this guy going to wake himself up and pitch like a power pitcher?

His classic throw the ball down the middle routine when he doesn't get calls or those monumental meltdowns after he gives up a couple hits are a case of pure heart, and are also wearing thin. He only won eleven games last year because he got big time run support in the first half.

Vazquez is not a winner, and IMO, does not have what it takes to be one. Since he is being well compensated for his mediocrity, what motivation should he have?

Even if Vazquez gets lucky and wins 15 games, he will probably lose 16 to offset it.

Believe me, I wish this guy would win 25 games. But I am also a realist. Other than Jaime Moyer, not too many pitchers wake up or find new lives ten years into their ML career, at least not at a sustained level. All we can hope for is a career year out of him in the next three before he is gone.

TheOldRoman
12-11-2006, 12:37 AM
How can you defend a pitcher who just does not get it? I'll say it AGAIN, if he hasn't gotten the idea in nine, count them, nine seasons, what possible strategy can you come up with other than 'Coop will fix it' or 'Coop will get through to him'? That is BS. When is this guy going to wake himself up and pitch like a power pitcher?

His classic throw the ball down the middle routine when he doesn't get calls or those monumental meltdowns after he gives up a couple hits are a case of pure heart, and are also wearing thin. He only won eleven games last year because he got big time run support in the first half.

Vazquez is not a winner, and IMO, does not have what it takes to be one. Since he is being well compensated for his mediocrity, what motivation should he have?

Even if Vazquez gets lucky and wins 15 games, he will probably lose 16 to offset it.

Believe me, I wish this guy would win 25 games. But I am also a realist. Other than Jaime Moyer, not too many pitchers wake up or find new lives ten years into their ML career, at least not at a sustained level. All we can hope for is a career year out of him in the next three before he is gone.
He may have been in the majors for 9 years, but he spent one year with Cooper. Once again, Coop doesn't have to be a miracle worker. At worst, Vazquez is slightly above mediocre. At best, he is dominant. Coop doesn't need to waive a magic wand, he just needs to find that one little thing (or maybe a few, and Javy will be among the best in the game. Also, when it comes to mechanics and tipping pitches, normally coaches or catchers find the flaws, not the pitchers themselves.

As for the run support bull****, it is a wrong, tired argument. It is bull, plain and simple. In his wins, he allowed:
0 runs (4 runs support)
2 runs (13)
0 runs (8)
2 runs (9)
3 runs (9)
0 runs (11)
5 runs (8)
2 runs (20)
3 runs (11)
1 run (7)
2 runs (5)

OK, that looks like one bad start where the offense bailed him out, and a lot of really good starts where the offense piled on. You can argue that he should have pitched better in losses, but you can't trivialize his wins by claiming the offense bailed him out.

goon
12-11-2006, 01:40 AM
How can you defend a pitcher who just does not get it? I'll say it AGAIN, if he hasn't gotten the idea in nine, count them, nine seasons, what possible strategy can you come up with other than...



2000: 217 IP, 196 SO, 4.05 ERA
2001: 223 IP, 208 SO, 3.42 ERA
2002: 230 IP, 179 SO, 3.91 ERA
2003: 230 IP, 241 SO, 3.42 ERA

i don't necessarily understand what you are talking about when you say, "he doesn't get it" what exactly are you referring to?

looks like he had four seasons where he "got it". you can say it was in the NL, you can say it was in a pitcher's park, whatever, those are some insane numbers. when he went to the yankees it was like he hit a brick wall and since then he has never been the same.

and i'm not saying that don cooper is going fix the guy, but i'll take a pitcher with a good attitude, who shows up to play every game and tries his best over a lazy, out of shape pitcher who has lost velocity and blames his teammates for his shortcomings. plus, freddy is going to be a free agent next year, unlike vazquez and if i had to decide on whether to resign buehrle or garcia, i would choose buehrle without any hesitation.

i'm not going to pretend like i know what's going to happen with vazquez next year, but i'm glad we kept him.

Sargeant79
12-11-2006, 06:27 AM
He may have been in the majors for 9 years, but he spent one year with Cooper. Once again, Coop doesn't have to be a miracle worker. At worst, Vazquez is slightly above mediocre. At best, he is dominant. Coop doesn't need to waive a magic wand, he just needs to find that one little thing (or maybe a few, and Javy will be among the best in the game. Also, when it comes to mechanics and tipping pitches, normally coaches or catchers find the flaws, not the pitchers themselves.

As for the run support bull****, it is a wrong, tired argument. It is bull, plain and simple. In his wins, he allowed:
0 runs (4 runs support)
2 runs (13)
0 runs (8)
2 runs (9)
3 runs (9)
0 runs (11)
5 runs (8)
2 runs (20)
3 runs (11)
1 run (7)
2 runs (5)

OK, that looks like one bad start where the offense bailed him out, and a lot of really good starts where the offense piled on. You can argue that he should have pitched better in losses, but you can't trivialize his wins by claiming the offense bailed him out.

Just piling on...

IIRC, two or three of Javy's September starts from this past year should have been wins, and would have been if the offense had scored any runs. I seem to remember a 1-0 game in Boston (?) that he only allowed 2 or 3 hits, and another one where the bullpen blew a 1-0 or 2-0 lead of his.

He was outstanding through mid-May and he was pretty damn good again in September. That tells me that there's a good chance he's fixable.

And...lots of pitchers have put it together many years into their career. Curt Schilling and Chris Carpenter, to name a couple. It's fairly common for a lot of hard throwers with great stuff to be inconsistent early in their careers and finally learn how to "pitch" once they are either coached properly or finally mature enough to be receptive to coaching.

soxinem1
12-11-2006, 10:20 AM
2000: 217 IP, 196 SO, 4.05 ERA
2001: 223 IP, 208 SO, 3.42 ERA
2002: 230 IP, 179 SO, 3.91 ERA
2003: 230 IP, 241 SO, 3.42 ERA

i don't necessarily understand what you are talking about when you say, "he doesn't get it" what exactly are you referring to?

looks like he had four seasons where he "got it". you can say it was in the NL, you can say it was in a pitcher's park, whatever, those are some insane numbers. when he went to the yankees it was like he hit a brick wall and since then he has never been the same.

and i'm not saying that don cooper is going fix the guy, but i'll take a pitcher with a good attitude, who shows up to play every game and tries his best over a lazy, out of shape pitcher who has lost velocity and blames his teammates for his shortcomings. plus, freddy is going to be a free agent next year, unlike vazquez and if i had to decide on whether to resign buehrle or garcia, i would choose buehrle without any hesitation.

i'm not going to pretend like i know what's going to happen with vazquez next year, but i'm glad we kept him.

First, I have no problems with the Garcia trade. His time had come. Hopefully he'll be better against PIT than he was against KC.

Second, Vazquez has better stuff than all but a few pitchers in MLB. He has better raw stuff than Santana, Pettite, Halladay, Zito, and his offerings rival Oswalt. Yet all of those guys display better pitching talent and have killer instincts, which Vazquez has not shown. His meltdown inning against DET last year pretty much sums up the most common trait of his career. Mow 'em down for a pass or two in the order, then get lit up. Sure you can throw up a couple decent ERA years, but he has never shown the ability to put away hitters consistently like the Expos, Yankees, D-backs, and now us have hoped for.

You failed to put the hits, SLG, and HR's allowed when you listed his stats. If he challenged hitters consistently like he did in that one game late last year when he had about 13 K's against a tough line-up, I would be more inclined to agree with you. Thus, I cannot see how you can expect to count on more than 12 wins from him.

Believe me, this is one time I hope I am wrong, but like I mentioned in an earlier thread, not too many guys in MLB history all of a sudden become dominant in their 10th season.:rolleyes:

caulfield12
12-11-2006, 10:24 AM
First, I have no problems with the Garcia trade. His time had come. Hopefully he'll be better against PIT than he was against KC.

Second, Vazquez has better stuff than all but a few pitchers in MLB. He has better raw stuff than Santana, Pettite, Halladay, Zito, and his offerings rival Oswalt. Yet all of those guys display better pitching talent and have killer instincts, which Vazquez has not shown. His meltdown inning against DET last year pretty much sums up the most common trait of his career. Mow 'em down for a pass or two in the order, then get lit up. Sure you can throw up a couple decent ERA years, but he has never shown the ability to put away hitters consistently like the Expos, Yankees, D-backs, and now us have hoped for.

You failed to put the hits, SLG, and HR's allowed when you listed his stats. If he challenged hitters consistently like he did in that one game late last year when he had about 13 K's against a tough line-up, I would be more inclined to agree with you. Thus, I cannot see how you can expect to count on more than 12 wins from him.

Believe me, this is one time I hope I am wrong, but like I mentioned in an earlier thread, not too many guys in MLB history all of a sudden become dominant in their 10th season.:rolleyes:

He might have 4 "plus" pitches, but he doesn't have better stuff than Santana....Santana only needs two and sometimes three pitches to dominate, just like Liriano before he went down.

I understand your point, but I also wouldn't say that either Halladay or Oswalt have "less stuff," because their out pitches are electric, whereas Vazquez has 4 REALLY GOOD pitches.

soxinem1
12-11-2006, 10:38 AM
He might have 4 "plus" pitches, but he doesn't have better stuff than Santana....Santana only needs two and sometimes three pitches to dominate, just like Liriano before he went down.

I understand your point, but I also wouldn't say that either Halladay or Oswalt have "less stuff," because their out pitches are electric, whereas Vazquez has 4 REALLY GOOD pitches.

One thing Santana and Pedro have is this fire to battle the hitters, like a game within a game, so to speak. I remember Santana getting bombed like no tomorrow when he first came up. His first couple seasons he was not at all impressive. But then something clicked, and the rest is history.

While Santana has great stuff, his mechanics and location are the best in MLB right now, and that is one of the biggest reasons for his success. I've watched games where he hangs pitches and because his delivery is so smooth, he gets away with them.

If Vazquez hangs pitches they wind up in someone's living room.

Vazquez has not shown this ability to pitch, he just seems to be a thrower.

Granted he is a better number five (though probably #4 in 2007) than Mike Porzio, Dan Wright, Joe Magrane and the host of others given this spot, but he should be better than he has shown thus far.

Flight #24
12-11-2006, 10:41 AM
I remember Santana getting bombed like no tomorrow when he first came up. His first couple seasons he was not at all impressive. But then something clicked, and the rest is history.



Vazquez has not shown this ability to pitch, he just seems to be a thrower.



Anyone else notice the inconsistency there? Santana took a while to "get it" and is now the best pitcher in baseball. Vazquez has shown flashes, and improved through last season. but he will never be more than a thrower?:?:

soxinem1
12-11-2006, 11:09 AM
Anyone else notice the inconsistency there? Santana took a while to "get it" and is now the best pitcher in baseball. Vazquez has shown flashes, and improved through last season. but he will never be more than a thrower?:?:

What inconsistency? Santana developed in a year and a half, while for Vazquez its nine years and counting......:?:

And Vazquez has regressed the last three years, as evidenced by his composite 4.70 + ERA and losing record.

Why don't you start a Javier Vazquez Appreciation Thread and see what kind of response you get?

spiffie
12-11-2006, 11:34 AM
Anyone else notice the inconsistency there? Santana took a while to "get it" and is now the best pitcher in baseball. Vazquez has shown flashes, and improved through last season. but he will never be more than a thrower?:?:
I assume you're still waiting on Scott Ruffcorn to "get it" as well? It's only been 15 or so years, he just needs the right coaching to break out.

The last time Javy Vazquez was an all-star caliber pitcher Sox fans were still chanting the name "Magglio" with affection, thought Joe Borchard was an untouchable prospect, and were wondering if Danny Wright would get back what he had the year before. Some of the guys on the All-Star team with Javy included Russ Ortiz, Woody Williams, Shawn Chacon, Mike Williams, and Randy Wolf. I'm guessing we aren't expecting big years in 2007 from any of those guys, so why are people so hellbent on believing that suddenly Vazquez is ready to bust out and go 18-7 next year?

goon
12-11-2006, 11:40 AM
You failed to put the hits, SLG, and HR's allowed when you listed his stats. If he challenged hitters consistently like he did in that one game late last year when he had about 13 K's against a tough line-up, I would be more inclined to agree with you. Thus, I cannot see how you can expect to count on more than 12 wins from him.



well, unfortunately, vazquez is going to give up hits and homeruns, that's just the kind of pitcher he is. that's also why he gets hammered from time to time, he just stays in the strikezone so much. i think it is in that aspect alone why he gets hit, not because he doesn't have desire or a killer instinct, there were plenty of instances last year where vazquez would battle guys for 9-10 pitch AB's and won.

the only point i was making was that he had four amazing seasons, but when he went to new york it was like he hit a wall. do you really need me to count all of the pitchers that this has happened to?

what i like about vazquez is not just his talent, but the fact he is a good teammate and is in a contract for the next two years. he has shown a string of dominant years in the past and his skills have yet to diminish, that is probably the most comforting thing to know.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-11-2006, 11:45 AM
I assume you're still waiting on Scott Ruffcorn to "get it" as well? It's only been 15 or so years, he just needs the right coaching to break out.

The last time Javy Vazquez was an all-star caliber pitcher Sox fans were still chanting the name "Magglio" with affection, thought Joe Borchard was an untouchable prospect, and were wondering if Danny Wright would get back what he had the year before. Some of the guys on the All-Star team with Javy included Russ Ortiz, Woody Williams, Shawn Chacon, Mike Williams, and Randy Wolf. I'm guessing we aren't expecting big years in 2007 from any of those guys, so why are people so hellbent on believing that suddenly Vazquez is ready to bust out and go 18-7 next year?


Nobody on the staff pitched like they did in 2005 last season. Garland was good the second half and Contreras the first. Vazquez was good the first two and final two months of the season.

I don't understand the Vazquez bashing on this site. His ERA and WHIP were comparable to the other starters. He had the best strikeout ratio. He has had an excellent career to date. He was injured the second half of 2004. If you look at his game by game record over the past two seasons he had excellent games and a few bad ones which really inflated his numbers. People were reading his pitches in Arizona and people have speculated they he also tipped his pitches here at times.

spiffie
12-11-2006, 11:56 AM
Nobody on the staff pitched like they did in 2005 last season. Garland was good the second half and Contreras the first. Vazquez was good the first two and final two months of the season.

I don't understand the Vazquez bashing on this site. His ERA and WHIP were comparable to the other starters. He had the best strikeout ratio. He has had an excellent career to date. He was injured the second half of 2004. If you look at his game by game record over the past two seasons he had excellent games and a few bad ones which really inflated his numbers. People were reading his pitches in Arizona and people have speculated they he also tipped his pitches here at times.
The problem is that Javy Vazquez has had 2 careers, which if you didn't know better you would not believe were the work of the same pitcher.

2000-2003: 133 starts, 3.65 ERA, 6.8 innings per start.
1998-1999, 2004-2006: 155 starts, 5.01 ERA, 6.1 innings per start.

He is living off of a couple of extremely good years in the most low-pressure environment possible in a weak hitting league where had 1-2 automatic outs every time through the rotation.

As for why he gets bashed...Contreras pitched well as recently as summer 2006. Garland pitched well all but 2 months of the last 2 years. Buehrle pitched well all but one of the last 6 years. Vazquez hasn't pitched well since Sept. 2003. He has done nothing to earn the confidence of the fans, whereas the other pitchers have done something recently enough to merit the benefit of the doubt.

goon
12-11-2006, 12:05 PM
The problem is that Javy Vazquez has had 2 careers, which if you didn't know better you would not believe were the work of the same pitcher.

2000-2003: 133 starts, 3.65 ERA, 6.8 innings per start.
1998-1999, 2004-2006: 155 starts, 5.01 ERA, 6.1 innings per start.

He is living off of a couple of extremely good years in the most low-pressure environment possible in a weak hitting league where had 1-2 automatic outs every time through the rotation.

As for why he gets bashed...Contreras pitched well as recently as summer 2006. Garland pitched well all but 2 months of the last 2 years. Buehrle pitched well all but one of the last 6 years. Vazquez hasn't pitched well since Sept. 2003. He has done nothing to earn the confidence of the fans, whereas the other pitchers have done something recently enough to merit the benefit of the doubt.


first of all, i'm not going to crucify a guy for not pitching lights out his first two years in the league.

second, define "well". i would say striking out 17 blue jays in one game this season would be pitching "well". he has been inconsistent the last few seasons, i'll give you that, but he has pitched some great games in that span too.

spiffie
12-11-2006, 12:10 PM
first of all, i'm not going to crucify a guy for not pitching lights out his first two years in the league.

second, define "well". i would say striking out 17 blue jays in one game this season would be pitching "well". he has been inconsistent the last few seasons, i'll give you that, but he has pitched some great games in that span too.
By that standard Runelvys Hernandez and Kason Gabbard are stud pitchers as well, since they did great against us.

goon
12-11-2006, 12:14 PM
By that standard Runelvys Hernandez and Kason Gabbard are stud pitchers as well, since they did great against us.

spare me. what is important for this arguement is what he has done for the white sox and i don't think this past season was a model for consistency by any means for ANY of our pitchers. javier was no worse than anyone on our staff this year, if you want to make him the scapegoat, more power to you.

soxinem1
12-11-2006, 01:41 PM
spare me. what is important for this arguement is what he has done for the white sox and i don't think this past season was a model for consistency by any means for ANY of our pitchers. javier was no worse than anyone on our staff this year, if you want to make him the scapegoat, more power to you.

There were scapegoats on the ENTIRE staff, it was a group effort in 2006. But Vazquez did nothing to distinguish himself. Our first half schedule was loaded with weak opponents, and he did okay.

In the second half when he had to turn it up a notch, like the others, he failed. His ERA was near 5.00 from late June until the end. So with his 'excellent' stretch run ERA of about 5.00, he was already putting the team in a hole, which may explain why the team lost, what, 13 of his last 15 starts?

And whoever said he would be on the mound for a playoff-clinching game next year, please flash back to Game Seven of the 2004 ALCS.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-11-2006, 02:04 PM
There were scapegoats on the ENTIRE staff, it was a group effort in 2006. But Vazquez did nothing to distinguish himself. Our first half schedule was loaded with weak opponents, and he did okay.

In the second half when he had to turn it up a notch, like the others, he failed. His ERA was near 5.00 from late June until the end. So with his 'excellent' stretch run ERA of about 5.00, he was already putting the team in a hole, which may explain why the team lost, what, 13 of his last 15 starts?

And whoever said he would be on the mound for a playoff-clinching game next year, please flash back to Game Seven of the 2004 ALCS.

:rolleyes:

April 2-1 ERA 3.67
May 4-2 ERA 3.99
June 2-1 ERA 7.50
July 1-2 ERA 6.82
August 2-2 ERA 3.41
September 0-3 ERA 3.82

The month he went 0-3 he had a 3.82 ERA. he pitched poor in June / July and pitched well the other 4 months.

Starts / Runs Allowed:

4 starts allowing 0 earned runs
2 starts allowing 1 earned run
8 starts allowing 2 earned runs
6 starts allowing 3 earned runs

In 20 of his 32 starts (62.5%) he gave up 3 earned runs or less. In 14 of 32 (43.75%) of his starts he gave up 2 or less earned runs.

In 2004 he pitched injured in the second half. He went 10-5 with a 3.56 ERA Pre All Star Break.

Javier was 21 when he broke into the starting rotation, which is ahead of at least 95% of MLB starters (most do not break into a rotation until a few years later in life). I guess he could have dominated the minor leagues but it made more sense bringing him up, even if he wasn't necessarily ready.

People who are optimistic that Vazquez will be even better next year look at his stuff and the fact he pitched decent to excellent for 2/3 of the season and were able to get past the media whichhunt which took place during the season.

Flight #24
12-11-2006, 02:20 PM
I assume you're still waiting on Scott Ruffcorn to "get it" as well? It's only been 15 or so years, he just needs the right coaching to break out.

The last time Javy Vazquez was an all-star caliber pitcher Sox fans were still chanting the name "Magglio" with affection, thought Joe Borchard was an untouchable prospect, and were wondering if Danny Wright would get back what he had the year before. Some of the guys on the All-Star team with Javy included Russ Ortiz, Woody Williams, Shawn Chacon, Mike Williams, and Randy Wolf. I'm guessing we aren't expecting big years in 2007 from any of those guys, so why are people so hellbent on believing that suddenly Vazquez is ready to bust out and go 18-7 next year?


If you don't recognize the huge difference between a guy who's shown flashes of being an outstanding major league pitcher and a guy who couldn't get you or I out, then there's really no point in continuing a discussion.

You could have made the same statements about a couple of other "Ruffcorn's": Loaiza, Contreras, heck - even Freddy Garcia.

Yup, when he came over, Freddy was coming off of 2 years of below league average ERAs, increasing WHIP, and increasing HR #s. And in his first season with the Sox, he posted an ERA of 4.5 and gave up 14 HRs in 16 starts.

Is Javy Vazquez an ace pitcher? No. But he is a solid mid-rotation guy. He sandwiched 4 very good months around 2 very bad ones, which is exactly what you'd expect from a guy who you knew needed to be coached a bit and get comfortable. He also ended the season very well, an indication that Coops' "system" took hold well. He now has the benefit of an offseason with that system to further cement things meaning that it's quite likely that in '07 you get the Aug-Sep Javy.

caulfield12
12-11-2006, 02:25 PM
If you don't recognize the huge difference between a guy who's shown flashes of being an outstanding major league pitcher and a guy who couldn't get you or I out, then there's really no point in continuing a discussion.

You could have made the same statements about a couple of other "Ruffcorn's": Loaiza, Contreras, heck - even Freddy Garcia.

Yup, when he came over, Freddy was coming off of 2 years of below league average ERAs, increasing WHIP, and increasing HR #s. And in his first season with the Sox, he posted an ERA of 4.5 and gave up 14 HRs in 16 starts.

Is Javy Vazquez an ace pitcher? No. But he is a solid mid-rotation guy. He sandwiched 4 very good months around 2 very bad ones, which is exactly what you'd expect from a guy who you knew needed to be coached a bit and get comfortable. He also ended the season very well, an indication that Coops' "system" took hold well. He now has the benefit of an offseason with that system to further cement things meaning that it's quite likely that in '07 you get the Aug-Sep Javy.

I'm MUCH more worried about Buehrle and El Gran Titan de Bronze.

We're not going anywhere unless they both step it up again and are injury-free.

spiffie
12-11-2006, 02:31 PM
If you don't recognize the huge difference between a guy who's shown flashes of being an outstanding major league pitcher and a guy who couldn't get you or I out, then there's really no point in continuing a discussion.

You could have made the same statements about a couple of other "Ruffcorn's": Loaiza, Contreras, heck - even Freddy Garcia.

Yup, when he came over, Freddy was coming off of 2 years of below league average ERAs, increasing WHIP, and increasing HR #s. And in his first season with the Sox, he posted an ERA of 4.5 and gave up 14 HRs in 16 starts.

Is Javy Vazquez an ace pitcher? No. But he is a solid mid-rotation guy. He sandwiched 4 very good months around 2 very bad ones, which is exactly what you'd expect from a guy who you knew needed to be coached a bit and get comfortable. He also ended the season very well, an indication that Coops' "system" took hold well. He now has the benefit of an offseason with that system to further cement things meaning that it's quite likely that in '07 you get the Aug-Sep Javy.
Freddy's 4.46 ERA with the White Sox in 2004 was still half a run below the league average ERA during that time. His 2004 season overall saw him nearly a run below the league average. So by the time 2005 started we had already seen Garcia return to form pretty much.

Contreras had one bad season in his first full year in the major leagues. I fail to see how that can reasonably compare to a guy who falls off in his 6th through 8th seasons in the majors.

Esteban Loaiza was a one year wonder of such magnitude that you have to wonder if there wasn't something shady going on there. His 2003 season is one of the most unlikely aberrations of the last 20 years.

I don't dispute the idea that Vazquez is a middle of the rotation guy. He's not Mike Porzio or Arnie Munoz. The thread though questioned whether the trade should have been made. Going into 2006, the Sox really didn't need a middle of the rotation guy who was getting money that at the time was #1 or #2 guy cash. If anything this offseason has kind of put Vazquez in his appropriate salary bracket, alongside guys like Gil Meche and Ted Lilly. Guys who will win 12-13 games, pitch a couple great games and a couple bad ones and mostly just be mediocre. But we sure gave up a lot in cash and people to get a #5 starter.

Ol' No. 2
12-11-2006, 02:45 PM
Freddy's 4.46 ERA with the White Sox in 2004 was still half a run below the league average ERA during that time. His 2004 season overall saw him nearly a run below the league average. So by the time 2005 started we had already seen Garcia return to form pretty much.

Contreras had one bad season in his first full year in the major leagues. I fail to see how that can reasonably compare to a guy who falls off in his 6th through 8th seasons in the majors.

Esteban Loaiza was a one year wonder of such magnitude that you have to wonder if there wasn't something shady going on there. His 2003 season is one of the most unlikely aberrations of the last 20 years.

I don't dispute the idea that Vazquez is a middle of the rotation guy. He's not Mike Porzio or Arnie Munoz. The thread though questioned whether the trade should have been made. Going into 2006, the Sox really didn't need a middle of the rotation guy who was getting money that at the time was #1 or #2 guy cash. If anything this offseason has kind of put Vazquez in his appropriate salary bracket, alongside guys like Gil Meche and Ted Lilly. Guys who will win 12-13 games, pitch a couple great games and a couple bad ones and mostly just be mediocre. But we sure gave up a lot in cash and people to get a #5 starter.The Sox didn't give up cash in the deal - they GOT cash. What they gave up was an aging Orlando Hernandez (who'd spent half the previous season on the DL), a mediocre middle reliever and a prospect who may or may not amount to anything, but plays a position at which the Sox minor leagues are already overstocked - all for a guy with a very high ceiling.

It took a full year to get Contreras turned around. If Vazquez doesn't come around in 2007 and Young turns into a top-notch CF, you can call it a bad deal. Until then, the jury's still out.

spiffie
12-11-2006, 03:08 PM
The Sox didn't give up cash in the deal - they GOT cash. What they gave up was an aging Orlando Hernandez (who'd spent half the previous season on the DL), a mediocre middle reliever and a prospect who may or may not amount to anything, but plays a position at which the Sox minor leagues are already overstocked - all for a guy with a very high ceiling.

It took a full year to get Contreras turned around. If Vazquez doesn't come around in 2007 and Young turns into a top-notch CF, you can call it a bad deal. Until then, the jury's still out.
They took on a $10 million salary. They added $4-5 million to the payroll, $10 million if you assume they could have made a trade of Hernandez for prospects. All the while having their #1 prospect in the organization waiting in the wings. And sent off one of their best trade prospects.

What might the trading deadline have looked like for the Sox in July of 2006 if they had the following:
At least $10 million in cash to expand payroll
The freedom to trade 1 or 2 of our OF prospects (Anderson, Owens, Sweeney, Young)
Vizcaino in the pen throughout the season
McCarthy in the rotation

Even if Javy turns around and wins 20 games for us next year, I still maintain it was a poor trade because it weakened us unnecessarily for 2006. Going forward it ties up over $20 million the next two years for a pitcher who might possibly give us a good year if everything breaks right for him in a way that things haven't since the 2003 season.

The point is not whether Young becomes Griffey or Vazquez becomes Danny Wright. The point is whether this was a good allocation of resources. Did we spend our limited human and financial capital wisely. I would say not. Now if Vazquez suddenly becomes Johan Santana and puts the team on his back for a World Series run, then I'm dead wrong, and you can throw eggs at me while I pick out my 2007 World Series champs memorabilia. But to me that would be about the only way you could justify this deal.

caulfield12
12-11-2006, 03:22 PM
They took on a $10 million salary. They added $4-5 million to the payroll, $10 million if you assume they could have made a trade of Hernandez for prospects. All the while having their #1 prospect in the organization waiting in the wings. And sent off one of their best trade prospects.

What might the trading deadline have looked like for the Sox in July of 2006 if they had the following:
At least $10 million in cash to expand payroll
The freedom to trade 1 or 2 of our OF prospects (Anderson, Owens, Sweeney, Young)
Vizcaino in the pen throughout the season
McCarthy in the rotation

Even if Javy turns around and wins 20 games for us next year, I still maintain it was a poor trade because it weakened us unnecessarily for 2006. Going forward it ties up over $20 million the next two years for a pitcher who might possibly give us a good year if everything breaks right for him in a way that things haven't since the 2003 season.

The point is not whether Young becomes Griffey or Vazquez becomes Danny Wright. The point is whether this was a good allocation of resources. Did we spend our limited human and financial capital wisely. I would say not. Now if Vazquez suddenly becomes Johan Santana and puts the team on his back for a World Series run, then I'm dead wrong, and you can throw eggs at me while I pick out my 2007 World Series champs memorabilia. But to me that would be about the only way you could justify this deal.


We basically "sold" Young because the D-Backs took El Duque's contract (he wasn't going to be a starter for us anymore, nor a reliever) and paid back part of Vazquez's deal. And KW didn't want Vizcaino anymore.

It's easy to look from the lens or prism of this year's pitching market, but no way do we get them to take El Duque, pay his full salary AND give up prospects.

Vizcaino wasn't valued by many here until everyone saw the drop-off between our 4-6 relievers in 2005 versus 2006. It's not as if hordes of fans were clamoring to bring him back, he was an "average" reliever who had lost his good fastball and was relying on his slider too much.

We can't be 100% certain that McCarthy was ready...maybe, maybe not. But we can't make that assumption, and, if the organization felt he was ready, they would have traded a frontline starter before last season.

jabrch
12-11-2006, 03:23 PM
Even if Javy turns around and wins 20 games for us next year, I still maintain it was a poor trade

That's clearly sound baseball logic. If we gave up Duque, Viz and a prospect for a 20 game winner, you'd think it was a POOR trade? POOR? POOR? I don't even think it was a poor trade now, much less if we get Javy to 20 game winner form.

Ol' No. 2
12-11-2006, 03:27 PM
We basically "sold" Young because the D-Backs took El Duque's contract (he wasn't going to be a starter for us anymore, nor a reliever) and paid back part of Vazquez's deal. And KW didn't want Vizcaino anymore.

It's easy to look from the lens or prism of this year's pitching market, but no way do we get them to take El Duque, pay his full salary AND give up prospects.

Vizcaino wasn't valued by many here until everyone saw the drop-off between our 4-6 relievers in 2005 versus 2006. It's not as if hordes of fans were clamoring to bring him back, he was an "average" reliever who had lost his good fastball and was relying on his slider too much.

We can't be 100% certain that McCarthy was ready...maybe, maybe not. But we can't make that assumption, and, if the organization felt he was ready, they would have traded a frontline starter before last season.In fact, KW said several times that he didn't think McCarthy could have held up to a full season starting last year, and that he needed to build up his core strength. This is really what prompted the trade. He couldn't count on Hernandez and didn't want to count on McCarthy. They needed a 5th starter. The fact that Vazquez would be under control for three years is also a significant consideration.

White Sox Randy
12-11-2006, 04:20 PM
The trade cost the Sox another World Championship and more.

1. McCarthy would have had a better season than Vazquez = MORE WINS.

2. Vizcaino would have been a solid bullpen arm much better than Logan, Montero, Tracey crap = MORE WINS.

3. We could have traded EL Duque for a legit bullpen arm = MORE WINS.

4. We could have brought up Chris Young to play in the CENTER FIELD instead of Mackowiack = MORE WINS.

GET IT ?!?!?!


PLUS ! WE WOULD HAVE ONE OF THE BEST YOUNG OFer's in the game for a long time. We would be sitting pretty right now !

soxinem1
12-11-2006, 04:55 PM
The trade cost the Sox another World Championship and more.

1. McCarthy would have had a better season than Vazquez = MORE WINS.

2. Vizcaino would have been a solid bullpen arm much better than Logan, Montero, Tracey crap = MORE WINS.

3. We could have traded EL Duque for a legit bullpen arm = MORE WINS.

4. We could have brought up Chris Young to play in the CENTER FIELD instead of Mackowiack = MORE WINS.

GET IT ?!?!?!


PLUS ! WE WOULD HAVE ONE OF THE BEST YOUNG OFer's in the game for a long time. We would be sitting pretty right now !


I agree with everything except the McCarthy/Vazquez comparison. There is really no way of telling that McCarthy gets more wins, but getting 10-11 was probably not out of the question.

I personally do not like to be an armchair manager and pass judgement after a trade has been done, but frankly, Vazquez did not do anything in 2006 to ease what were already strong doubts. Sure, I was happy to see him going out there versus the other clowns that were fifth starters from 1995-2004, but for $11 million +, was it that much of an upgrade over letting McCarthy pitch in the fifth spot? His performances down the stretch in 2005 were very sound, whereas Vazquez' performance with contenders was a much different story.

The teams he played for that were in the post-season picture, he pitched like crap, which would include the 2005 D-backs because they were actually in the playoff hunt until later in the season.

This psycho-analizing and number crunching is basically just boiling down to the same thing. He blinked first in the close ones, and was bombed to daylights in many of the others. So when it all boils down, his ERA the past three years is nearly 5.00 and his record is a losing one. Definitely not worth $12 million a season.

santo=dorf
12-11-2006, 06:08 PM
By that standard Runelvys Hernandez and Kason Gabbard are stud pitchers as well, since they did great against us.

http://img312.imageshack.us/img312/4518/lexwrong4ok.jpg
"WRONG!!!!!"

Career against the Sox: 4-6, 6.58 ERA, 1.58 WHIP, 15 HR in 67 IP.

goon
12-11-2006, 06:14 PM
April 2-1 ERA 3.67
May 4-2 ERA 3.99
June 2-1 ERA 7.50
July 1-2 ERA 6.82
August 2-2 ERA 3.41
September 0-3 ERA 3.82

The month he went 0-3 he had a 3.82 ERA. he pitched poor in June / July and pitched well the other 4 months.

Starts / Runs Allowed:

4 starts allowing 0 earned runs
2 starts allowing 1 earned run
8 starts allowing 2 earned runs
6 starts allowing 3 earned runs

In 20 of his 32 starts (62.5%) he gave up 3 earned runs or less. In 14 of 32 (43.75%) of his starts he gave up 2 or less earned runs.

In 2004 he pitched injured in the second half. He went 10-5 with a 3.56 ERA Pre All Star Break.




good research...

enough said.

TheOldRoman
12-11-2006, 06:43 PM
The trade cost the Sox another World Championship and more.

1. McCarthy would have had a better season than Vazquez = MORE WINS.

2. Vizcaino would have been a solid bullpen arm much better than Logan, Montero, Tracey crap = MORE WINS.

3. We could have traded EL Duque for a legit bullpen arm = MORE WINS.

4. We could have brought up Chris Young to play in the CENTER FIELD instead of Mackowiack = MORE WINS.

GET IT ?!?!?!


PLUS ! WE WOULD HAVE ONE OF THE BEST YOUNG OFer's in the game for a long time. We would be sitting pretty right now !
Well, I guess that settles it.

:rolleyes:

pearso66
12-11-2006, 06:55 PM
I have two points, and I will shut up and allow everyone to respond their own way. I will first state that I am a Vazquez supporter, but anyway, here goes.

1. I will admit I didn't do any research on this, but didn't even the great Randy Johnson struggle for a few years before coming the dominant pitcher he was in his prime? So even if studs like that, it can take some time, or even the right situation for them to thrive.

2. Wasn't the big part of the Vazquez deal to get one of Garland/Contreras to sign an extension, and not just any extension, one that was fair and reasonable? Could you imagine this site if we went into last year with McCarthy in the rotation, and then this year both Garland and Contreras walked because of what they could have gotten in the FA market? Then we only have Buehrle, Garcia and McCarthy, and maybe 1 of Garland/Contreras, definitally not both. I think that the Vazquez trade got those 2 to realize that the Sox wouldn't have a problem letting them walk, and if they wanted to be on this team, they better sign early and possibly at a discount.

caulfield12
12-11-2006, 08:14 PM
The trade cost the Sox another World Championship and more.

1. McCarthy would have had a better season than Vazquez = MORE WINS.

2. Vizcaino would have been a solid bullpen arm much better than Logan, Montero, Tracey crap = MORE WINS.

3. We could have traded EL Duque for a legit bullpen arm = MORE WINS.

4. We could have brought up Chris Young to play in the CENTER FIELD instead of Mackowiack = MORE WINS.

GET IT ?!?!?!


PLUS ! WE WOULD HAVE ONE OF THE BEST YOUNG OFer's in the game for a long time. We would be sitting pretty right now !

Ummm....how were we going to get any teams to take a $6.5 million contract for El Duque without "sweetening" the pot? You really think there was a huge market out there of teams willing to take him off our hands, make him a starter AND give us relievers who could contribute right away?

Were you clamoring to improve the bullpen (besides the Marte spot) during the Spring last year? Did you tell KW he should dump Cotts and Politte for better relievers before last season even started?

How many White Sox position prospects have made an instance impact since Magglio and C-Lee? NONE. There's certainly no guarantee Chris Young would have done significantly better than BA based on past prospect performances (Crede, Rowand, Borchard) where the player has required 2-3 years to develop, if then.