PDA

View Full Version : Thanks Phil, lovely recap of Vazquez deal AGAIN!!!


caulfield12
01-06-2007, 09:40 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070105rogers,1,1154597.column?coll=cs-columnists

At least he got some shots in on the Yankees, that was the highlight of the article for me.

If only we had Aaron Rowand, Vizcaino, El Duque and Chris Young, we would have threatened 120 victories.:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

Grzegorz
01-06-2007, 10:14 PM
I like that he mentioned that the Red Sox still haven't announced the J.D. Drew deal.

Specifically that the tango between J.D. Drew & the Red Sox is about to become a big story.

TheOldRoman
01-07-2007, 01:47 AM
If only we had Aaron Rowand, Vizcaino, El Duque and Chris Young, we would have threatened 120 victories.:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:
:tealpolice:

NewYawk718
01-07-2007, 01:48 AM
What a complete idiot, mr. rogers is. First off on the white sox front, Luis Vizcaino while good is not the difference between the whitesox winning 6 more gamea last year to make the playoffs. Also as good as chris young looks who's to say he would peform well in his rookie year; Phil rogers also seems to forget brian anderson is not the reason the whitesox didnt make the playoffs last year. What about the fact that el duque put up something like a 5 e.r.a. with the white sox in 2005, how is that an upgrade over vazquez?

Now on the yankee front, cashman offered alot of money pettite. Cashman offered more than the astros, andy's wife wanted him to go to houston. El duque has shown to be somewhat of a fragile pitcher, letting him go was not that big of a deal, and furthermore the acquisition of RANDY JOHNSON, gary sheffield and most of the overpaid veteran on the yankees was a result of tampa and george steinbrenner. Now that cashman has full reign, does he not see that he's employing the philosopy (acquiring young talent) that gene michaels employed as well as bob watson.

chisoxfanatic
01-07-2007, 01:58 AM
You want to know why the Yankees haven't won the World Series since 2001?

It's been a year longer than that for their "drought." :D:

fquaye149
01-07-2007, 02:29 AM
:tealpolice:
thanks for pointing that out:rolleyes:

caulfield12
01-07-2007, 05:17 AM
:tealpolice:


Ummmm...I didn't think there was an actual need to put that in teal.

The word would be facetious.

Realist
01-07-2007, 05:33 AM
The word would be facetious.

http://www.pdcomedy.com/ClassicTV/GrouchoMarx/images/GrouchoMarx.jpg
"Facetious... That's the $50 word."

soxtalker
01-07-2007, 08:42 AM
Sorry, but I can't get terribly worked up over this. There have been plenty of people on WSI who have expressed similar desires that we could take back the trade with Arizona -- mainly because of the inconsistency of Vazquez and promise of Chris Young. Rogers makes interesting comments -- some complimentary toward the Sox, some opposed. When he came on this board a week ago or so, he sure didn't sound like someone on a mission to trash the Sox.

TheOldRoman
01-07-2007, 12:15 PM
thanks for pointing that out:rolleyes:There are many people on this site who seem to think that is true. Besides Rowand being the "heart and soul" and best defensive CF ever, Chris Young would have come up at midseason and hit .400, and El Duque would have given us 30 starts (and 20 wins) in 06. I didn't know if Caulfield was one of those clowns or making fun of them. But thanks for the insightful contribution.:rolleyes:

Brian26
01-07-2007, 12:43 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070105rogers,1,1154597.column?coll=cs-columnists

At least he got some shots in on the Yankees, that was the highlight of the article for me.

If only we had Aaron Rowand, Vizcaino, El Duque and Chris Young, we would have threatened 120 victories.:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

Phil did not mention the Aaron Rowand/Jim Thome trade in his column, nor did he ever say that the Sox would have won 120 games last year.

You seem to have missed his underlying point, which was actually a compliment towards what Kenny Williams has done this year. His point was that teams trying to sell veteran pitchers often times do very well for themselves in what they get in return; likewise, teams who pick up veteran pitchers generally don't get as high of a performance return based on what they gave up.

Whether or not you like what he says, he has a valid argument. If you take Vazquez off the '06 squad and replace him with El Duque/McCarthy in the 5th spot, Chris Young as a possible CF midseason replacement for Anderson, and put Vizcaino in the pen in lieu of Montero/Riske/etc, the Sox may have been 4 to 5 games better in '06. That may or may not have been enough to win the division.

His analogy was that picking up Vazquez didn't significantly improve the team, just as the Yankees didn't significantly improve after acquiring Randy Johnson two years ago.

He ended his column with the statement that the Phillies may not get the expected production out of Garcia (like the Sox expected out of Vazquez), and maybe Gio and Floyd will turn out to be very good acquisitions.

I wasn't offended by the piece as so many other people were, and I didn't see any implied or subtle Sox bashing. I don't always agree with Rogers, but he seems to write fairly well-thought-out columns.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-07-2007, 12:45 PM
There are many people on this site who seem to think that is true. Besides Rowand being the "heart and soul" and best defensive CF ever, Chris Young would have come up at midseason and hit .400, and El Duque would have given us 30 starts (and 20 wins) in 06. I didn't know if Caulfield was one of those clowns or making fun of them. But thanks for the insightful contribution.:rolleyes:

Which would be absolutely ridiculous.

Hernandez - 162 1/3 IP, 4.66 ERA, 1.33 WHIP - with over 2/3 of his starts for the Mets with their highly advantageous pitchers park (as well as the rest of the division) and all of his starts were in the horse**** NL.

Young - 30 Games, .243 BA, 2 HR, 2 SB

Rowand - 109 G, .262 BA, 12 HR, 10 SB

The hated (by many) Javier Vazquez had 40 more IP in the much tough AL, had a similar ERA which would have been much lower if so many inherited runners didn't score on him (his ERC was 4.02). Rowand is a separate deal and nobody can claim Thome wasn't worth the price, credibly at least (well unless they would have "known" Frank Thomas would be able to play more than the 54 games he averaged the previous two seasons and Thome's LHB would remain a very important addition to our heavy RHB lineup).

SSHM - FOJV since 1998.

fquaye149
01-07-2007, 12:49 PM
There are many people on this site who seem to think that is true. Besides Rowand being the "heart and soul" and best defensive CF ever, Chris Young would have come up at midseason and hit .400, and El Duque would have given us 30 starts (and 20 wins) in 06. I didn't know if Caulfield was one of those clowns or making fun of them. But thanks for the insightful contribution.:rolleyes:

You had me till that last sentence.

You must be kidding me if you thought it was possible to read his post straightforwardly. I'm sick of this teal police business in this fashion. It's like the person in real life who when you say,

"God I just LOOOOVE it when people wait for five minutes at a green light."

they say

"Um, don't you mean you DON'T love it?"

santo=dorf
01-07-2007, 01:22 PM
Oddly, Vazquez makes USA Today's best 25 man roster for the price (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/bbw/2007-01-04-value-roster_x.htm?csp=34)team.


No. 5 starter
Javier Vazquez (http://fantasybaseball.usatoday.com/content/player.asp?sport=MLB&id=2528), White Sox
Vazquez emerges from a lengthy debate, which centered more on the sensibility of paying a fifth starter $12 million. As uncomfortable as that financial aspect was for most of our experts, it became apparent Vazquez had the best credentials after a dozen or so other names were floated. Plus, if we're trying to make this team as realistic as possible, some veteran influence wouldn't hurt the rest of our staff.
Hardly anyone on the panel expected Vazquez to survive later roster changes to meet our payroll limit, but he did, thanks mostly to the bargain nature of the rest of the staff. Vazquez's salary was more than $1.5 million more than the rest of the rotation combined.
The only bigger surprise to us is that Vazquez completes an all-AL rotation. In fact, only two members of our 11-man staff are from the National League, taking some of the air out of the popular theory that moving to the NL can help a pitcher.

caulfield12
01-07-2007, 01:45 PM
Phil did not mention the Aaron Rowand/Jim Thome trade in his column, nor did he ever say that the Sox would have won 120 games last year.

You seem to have missed his underlying point, which was actually a compliment towards what Kenny Williams has done this year. His point was that teams trying to sell veteran pitchers often times do very well for themselves in what they get in return; likewise, teams who pick up veteran pitchers generally don't get as high of a performance return based on what they gave up.

Whether or not you like what he says, he has a valid argument. If you take Vazquez off the '06 squad and replace him with El Duque/McCarthy in the 5th spot, Chris Young as a possible CF midseason replacement for Anderson, and put Vizcaino in the pen in lieu of Montero/Riske/etc, the Sox may have been 4 to 5 games better in '06. That may or may not have been enough to win the division.

His analogy was that picking up Vazquez didn't significantly improve the team, just as the Yankees didn't significantly improve after acquiring Randy Johnson two years ago.

He ended his column with the statement that the Phillies may not get the expected production out of Garcia (like the Sox expected out of Vazquez), and maybe Gio and Floyd will turn out to be very good acquisitions.

I wasn't offended by the piece as so many other people were, and I didn't see any implied or subtle Sox bashing. I don't always agree with Rogers, but he seems to write fairly well-thought-out columns.


That's fine, I understand the argument about acquiring veteran pitching (gee, Phil...that Kenny Rogers acquisition really didn't work out for the Tigers) and I've defended KW, but no way the White Sox would have made the playoffs with Thomas, Rowand, El Duque, Vizcaino and C. Young.

ilsox7
01-07-2007, 01:50 PM
That's fine, I understand the argument about acquiring veteran pitching (gee, Phil...that Kenny Rogers acquisition really didn't work out for the Tigers) and I've defended KW, but no way the White Sox would have made the playoffs with Thomas, Rowand, El Duque, Vizcaino and C. Young.

The Gambler was a free agent signing by the Tigers, not a trade, which was basically the entire premise of Phil's argument about trading veteran starters.

caulfield12
01-07-2007, 03:03 PM
The Gambler was a free agent signing by the Tigers, not a trade, which was basically the entire premise of Phil's argument about trading veteran starters.

There really haven't been too many veteran pitchers traded the last 2-3 years.

Some deals that go against Rogers' theory.

Bronson Arroyo to Reds
Vincente Padillla to Rangers
Kaz Ishii
Tim Hudson (not a great success with Braves but they didn't get hurt with what they gave up)

Rogers forgets we actually traded the more "veteran" pitcher in El Duque to get a younger pitcher in return.

Of course, the Mulder and Johnson trades are being brought up, but I don't find a tremendous amount of evidence to substantiate PR's claims either.

Some other trades for veteran pitchers that worked well include Chacon to the Yankees, Weaver to the Cardinals and Kennedy to the A's.

And, of course, there's the dreaded Kazmir/Zambrano deal.

UserNameBlank
01-07-2007, 03:15 PM
That's fine, I understand the argument about acquiring veteran pitching (gee, Phil...that Kenny Rogers acquisition really didn't work out for the Tigers) and I've defended KW, but no way the White Sox would have made the playoffs with Thomas, Rowand, El Duque, Vizcaino and C. Young.

There is no way to tell. Vizcaino would have been a huge improvement over the crap we had in 6th/7th innings and, if McCarthy were starting with El Duque as a LR, the Sox may not have had the same bullpen woes. Rowand would have been a little bit of an improvement offensively in CF and would have made some similar great plays out there, though maybe not as many as Brian when he was playing. Still, Mackowiak wouldn't have been in center very often if at all. Young would make our farm system better.

The only real debate is Thomas vs. Thome, and while Thome helped a lot more in the first half, Thomas would have helped a lot more in the second half. Both players were going good midseason. I'd have to side a bit more towards Thomas though since the offense was really clicking the first half and not so much the second, so it is possible the Sox could have afforded Thomas' slow start more than they could afford Thome's slow end of the year. Plus Thomas IMO has a better chance of getting that clutch hit, and he also doesn't K as much. At the time when KW made the Thome trade though, the Sox were playing it safe and no one should fault him for that.

maurice
01-08-2007, 03:41 PM
I've argued in the past that a problem with the AZ deal is that KW failed to acquire bullpen help before the season started. That doesn't mean that the AZ deal was a bad one. It just means that KW failed to follow up in a timely manner. Vizcaino is extremely replaceable and, even if Vazquez is nothing more than a mediocre starter, he has more value than a mediocre reliever. Also, hindsight notwithstanding, it would have been completely unreasonable to expect Duque to hold down a rotation slot all season, and KW's projections for McCarthy as a starter obviously don't match Rogers' projections.

I am one of the biggest Chris Young fans on this site, but you cannot reasonably argue that he would have made us a better team in 2006. He broke his hand pre-season and didn't even play a significant role on a bad AZ team. He certainly wasn't going to improve the record of a 90-win team. You could reasonably argue that Young > Anderson from here on out, but that's not the issue.

Then he says that the Vazquez is:
a reminder that it's usually better to be the seller than the buyer in a deal for veteran pitching. Will that also prove true with the trade that sent Garcia to the Phillies for Gio Gonzalez and Gavin Floyd?

Don't forget the trade of "polished workhorse" Brandon McCarthy for 3 prospects. I guess those both probably should be considered winning moves now, and not a "disgrace," right Phil?
:rolleyes:

IIRC, KW recently confirmed that he turned down a Garland-for-the-Texas-package trade before agreeing to the McCarthy-for-the-Texas-package trade. So much for Phil's theory that KW and JR are white-flagging 2007, dumping high-paid vets, and cutting payroll to win in the future. If they don't care about 2007 and intend to dump Garland, then KW obviously would have taken the Garland offer and kept the cheaper, younger McCarthy.

Jerksticks
01-08-2007, 04:24 PM
You had me till that last sentence.

You must be kidding me if you thought it was possible to read his post straightforwardly. I'm sick of this teal police business in this fashion. It's like the person in real life who when you say,

"God I just LOOOOVE it when people wait for five minutes at a green light."

they say

"Um, don't you mean you DON'T love it?"


Totally. I haven't been around for too long, but most of the time the use of teal just cracks me up.

Perfect quote- "I swear, it's like I'm playin cards with my brother's kids, you nerve wrackin sons of bitches."

Name it.