PDA

View Full Version : Javier Vazquez


balke
06-18-2007, 11:09 AM
Has anyone seen any progress with this guy since he's become a White Sox player? His stuff is great. I saw him throw a lot of unhittable pitches yesterday. I also see he's still losing, and his ERA is still way above 4.00.

He gets a lot of money from the White Sox. Is the market so inflated that he's worth what he's got? Could Gavin Floyd give us these kinds of #'s with regular playing time? He's not even inconsistant like Jose from what I've seen. He is basically the same pitcher every outing, either a big early inning or a huge 6th. Just enough runs let by that the Sox lose.

Can someone talk some sense into me, or is he really just always going to be a sub .500 guy with a +4.50 AL ERA who gets a million dollars per loss and win? I've heard he's tipped pitches. Isn't it obvious by now that he's never going to stop?

Should the Sox unload and pay part of his salary at this point for a prospect?

Jerko
06-18-2007, 11:15 AM
I think Javy is very consistent. By that I mean he'll be like he is now every year. Maddeningly mediocre. Then again, I think all the pitchers on this team have an awful mindset. They give up runs seemingly every inning after they score, and they can't seem to get the 8 or 9 hitters out. I think it's in their heads. Do we blame Coop or are all these guys suddenly mental midgets? Every team knows to get our starters on a high pitch count and kill our bullpen, yet we see the same 3 guys with 80-90 pitches by the 4th or 5th innings. We don't attack as a team, AT ALL, on offense or defense. All our bullpen moves are reactionary (bringing in a "specialist" even if the current pitcher is doing well, etc) and IMO escessive. I've never seen such a passive bunch.

eriqjaffe
06-18-2007, 11:17 AM
I was surprised that the Sox gave Javy a 3-year extension, and was even more surprised when I saw how much money they gave him.

Then again, when players with track records like Gil Meche get 5 year, $55 million contracts, Vazquez's contract doesn't seem quite as outrageous.

Doesn't mean he's worth it, though. :2cents:

I wouldn't mind seeing the Sox deal Javy one little bit.

soxfanatlanta
06-18-2007, 11:17 AM
What you see is what you get with this guy.

lostfan
06-18-2007, 11:22 AM
From the Brushback, seems appropriate to post here: :D:

CHICAGO--White Sox starter Javier Vazquez mentally wrote off Monday night’s game against the Philadelphia Phillies after surrendering a run in the second inning, and spent the remainder of the game thinking about his next start.
“Well it’s too bad I let up that run so early,” said Vazquez, owner of a 4.15 ERA this season. “It’s very difficult to keep your focus after something like that because you’re basically just going through the motions for the rest of the game. I have only myself to blame, though. You just can’t go out there and put your team into a hole like that. When the Phillies put up the crooked number in the second inning, I knew it was the final nail in the coffin for us.”



Mod Edit- Do not copy and paste entire articles on the board. Post a paragraph or two and a mink. This will be your one warning.

balke
06-18-2007, 11:33 AM
Wow. A psychiatrist is actually probably a really good idea for this team. Great article, and summation of the season.

I realize its pretty dumb to pick on a pitcher when the hitting has been so bad, but hitting aside I see a team that has made a statement about starting pitching winning championships, and it just seems like Javy is a decent bargaining chip on a sinking ship if the Sox want to make a move that can help the team going forward.

They drafted pitchers in the hopes they'd at least put up numbers like Javy has in the ERA and wins department. I'm really hoping Broadway or Floyd could at least give the Sox a 4.80 performance when they are MLB ready.

I had hopes for Javy after the signing. He was the only guy I thought Coop would have as a "Project". Then the Sox signed a lot of projects and headcases and pitch tippers. I don't think Javy is ever going to progress from where he is, although I think he has the stuff to be a sub 3.25 ERA pitcher with even a 20 win season under his belt. Its a shame he never has been able to put it all together.

hawkjt
06-18-2007, 11:37 AM
looking at javvys stats vs the rest of the starters,he comes up short.

6 of 13 quality starts for javvy while the others:

burls- 10-12
jose- 9-12
jon- 8-13
danks- 8-12

Jose has had 11 unearned runs scored vs him- jose deserves a better record
Javvy has zero unearned runs just like burls

javvy has gone 6+ in every outing- only real positive stat for him
Hopefully, the mets and other contenders get desperate enough for starting pitching to make kenny a good offer for a signed,inning eater pitcher.

California Sox
06-18-2007, 11:58 AM
I believe Javy has an ironclad no trade. He's tired of moving around and wants to stay put. We're stuck with him.

SBSoxFan
06-18-2007, 12:00 PM
Well, he does have the second best SO:BB ratio among the starters.

Like balke, I too had high hopes for Vazquez, but that's all I've got.

balke
06-18-2007, 12:00 PM
I believe Javy has an ironclad no trade. He's tired of moving around and wants to stay put. We're stuck with him.

Think that psychiatrist has any trade value then?

That's really disappointing. What did the Sox get themselves into with this guy? I'd rather spend 22 on Santana, then 12 on Javy.

Dick Allen
06-18-2007, 12:04 PM
Javy was a stud with the Expos. Since he left Montreal, he continues to get worse with each passing year.

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 12:10 PM
looking at javvys stats vs the rest of the starters,he comes up short.

6 of 13 quality starts for javvy while the others:

burls- 10-12
jose- 9-12
jon- 8-13
danks- 8-12

Jose has had 11 unearned runs scored vs him- jose deserves a better record
Javvy has zero unearned runs just like burls

javvy has gone 6+ in every outing- only real positive stat for him
Hopefully, the mets and other contenders get desperate enough for starting pitching to make kenny a good offer for a signed,inning eater pitcher.

Vazquez is a victim of run support and bullpen gaffs. A breakdown:

April 19: Gave up leadoff double, MacDougal lets the run score. 3 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 3, no decision.

April 24: Gave up leadoff double, Thornton lets the run score. 5 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 6, no decision.

May 1: Gave up leadoff walk, got one out, Thornton lets the run score. 4 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 2, loss.

May 8: Gave up one run over 7 innings, 4 runs of support, bullpen blows it, no decision.

May 13: 6 IP, 4 ER, bullpen not a factor, 1 run of support, loss.

May 19: Game tied when he left (5 ER vs. 5 runs of support), no decision.

May 27: Two out, one on, Thornton lets the run score. 5 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 4, loss.

June 6: 4 ER, 1 run of support, loss

June 11: 3 ER, 0 runs in support, loss

June 17: 5 ER, 5 runs of support, no decision

A couple of those games are pinned directly on Vazquez but many of them were beyond his control. 1 run of support over two games? C'mon...

The Immigrant
06-18-2007, 12:17 PM
I believe Javy has an ironclad no trade. He's tired of moving around and wants to stay put. We're stuck with him.

Not quite. His no trade clause only applies to the nine West Coast teams. He wants to make sure he stays closer to his family in Puerto Rico.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2789635

sox1970
06-18-2007, 12:17 PM
I believe Javy has an ironclad no trade. He's tired of moving around and wants to stay put. We're stuck with him.

He has a limited NO-TRADE clause that allows him to veto trades to the nine AL and NL West teams.

tony1972
06-18-2007, 12:18 PM
Has anyone seen any progress with this guy since he's become a White Sox player? His stuff is great. I saw him throw a lot of unhittable pitches yesterday. I also see he's still losing, and his ERA is still way above 4.00.

He gets a lot of money from the White Sox. Is the market so inflated that he's worth what he's got? Could Gavin Floyd give us these kinds of #'s with regular playing time? He's not even inconsistant like Jose from what I've seen. He is basically the same pitcher every outing, either a big early inning or a huge 6th. Just enough runs let by that the Sox lose.

Can someone talk some sense into me, or is he really just always going to be a sub .500 guy with a +4.50 AL ERA who gets a million dollars per loss and win? I've heard he's tipped pitches. Isn't it obvious by now that he's never going to stop?

Should the Sox unload and pay part of his salary at this point for a prospect?


Generally his ERA is not bad and his stats are not bad. The frustrating things with Vasquez are more the 'untangibles'. This is what I mean..

(1) As a general rule..however many runs the White Sox score..Vasquez will give up that many plus 1 or 2. So if the Sox score 6..he'll surrender 8. If the Sox score 2, he'll only give up 4 and if the Sox are shutout...he'll give up only 1 and we still lose. His ERA went down last year..simply because the Sox stopped scoring runs for him late in the season so he didn't have to give up that many to get the loss. Thus the nice ERA.

(2) He generally cannot put up a zero when the Sox score.

(3) Every time last year we started a winning streak..3..4..5 games...our losing streaks ALWAYS started with one of his starts.

So..yes..his ERA is often under 4...yes he pitches reasonably well..BUT he doesn't pitch well when it counts (i/e we come back and take the lead...or pitches well but still gets the loss).

All I know is the Sox have a very bad record since they got him when he's the starting pitcher.

twentywontowin
06-18-2007, 12:18 PM
Also keep in mind, we are not paying all of the salary for him. I believe the Yankees are still paying some of it.

The Immigrant
06-18-2007, 12:22 PM
Also keep in mind, we are not paying all of the salary for him. I believe the Yankees are still paying some of it.

That arrangement ends this year. We are on the hook for the entirety of the remaining three years of his new deal ($34.5 million).

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 12:25 PM
Also keep in mind, we are not paying all of the salary for him. I believe the Yankees are still paying some of it.

Technically, Arizona is paying. It could be argued that since the Yankees sent money to Arizona and they are passing some of that on to the Sox, the Yankees are the ones paying.

That arrangement ends this year. We are on the hook for the entirety of the remaining three years of his new deal ($34.5 million).

Correct. Even though Vazquez will be taking a $1 million pay cut next season, the Sox are out of pocket an additional $1.5 million compared with this season due to the $2.5 million coming from Arizona.

Hitmen77
06-18-2007, 12:50 PM
I believe Javy has an ironclad no trade. He's tired of moving around and wants to stay put. We're stuck with him.

I don't think that's correct. IIRC, his no-trade clause only applies to the AL West and NL West teams - which was made part of his contract because he feels those cities are too far away from his family in Puerto Rico. The Sox can trade him to any East or Central division teams.

If the Sox are serious about winning, they should offer Buehrle a $6.5 million raise in his annual salary and a 5 year contract and then - if he accepts - trade away Vazquez and his $11.5 million/yr salary for as much talent as we can get for him during the offseason. Vazquez is tradeable - he's very durable, isn't losing velocity, not too old yet, not in his walk year next year. We should get more in return for him than we did for Garcia.

I know the Sox don't give 5 yr contracts to pitchers. But this is their chance to decide whether we're going to be competitive over the next few years - or just going back to years where we "stick to our principles" and hover around .500. If we want to hover around .500 for the rest of the decade and watch fan interest and attendance erode, then I think Javier Vazquez is the perfect person around which we should build our starting rotation. If we want to be a pennant contender again, then we lock up Buehrle and Garland and build our rotation around them.

JB98
06-18-2007, 12:56 PM
Vazquez can't hold a lead. He always pitches just well enough to lose. Every once in awhile, he'll come up with a dominating outing (see Toronto). And his apologists will start talking about his "potential" as if he is a 24-year-old pitcher. Unfortunately, what you see is what you get. This guy is a .500 pitcher at best. He's been that way for several years. The bottom line is he is the busted leg of the rotation. I have more confidence in Danks, for crying out loud.

WSox597
06-18-2007, 01:18 PM
In his last ten starts, the Sox are 1-9 counting his last loss.

$11 million per year for this? Where do I sign up?

All kidding aside, I was hoping when KW signed him to the extension, it was so he could trade him for some talent. I'm still hoping this happens.

Although it gets harder to move him with each poor outing.

JB98
06-18-2007, 01:23 PM
In his last ten starts, the Sox are 1-9 counting his last loss.

$11 million per year for this? Where do I sign up?

All kidding aside, I was hoping when KW signed him to the extension, it was so he could trade him for some talent. I'm still hoping this happens.

Although it gets harder to move him with each poor outing.

Don't count on it. KW loves Javy and inexplicably sees him as part of the solution. KW tried for two years to acquire Javy before successfully doing so, foolishly parting with two proven arms and an outfield prospect in the process. For some reason, KW values Vazquez over Buerhle and Garland. It flabbergasts me, frankly.

Lip Man 1
06-18-2007, 01:25 PM
Regarding Javier. If there was any way to deal Contreras instead I would do it in a heartbeat.

At least Javy gives you a better chance of winning 10 or 12 games a year and helping to anchor the back end of the rotation then Contreras.

No one really knows how old Jose is, or how many innings he threw all those years in Cuba.

Keep in mind that with the Sox potentially losing both Buehrle and Garland in the next two years, they are going to need some type of 'fairly reliable' starting pitching. Contreras probably won't be able to offer as much as Vasquez in the next three years.

Lip

The Immigrant
06-18-2007, 01:27 PM
I was hoping Vazquez would finally turn the corner this year and display some testicular fortitude for the first time in his career. Instead, all we get is more of the same - consistent mediocrity from a consummate paycheck collector. So much for the supposed benefits a new long-term contract was supposed to bring to his game. He still makes the same mental mistakes and beats himself on a regular basis. A million dollar arm and a ten cent brain.

His recent outings in Toronto and his record with the Expos lead to only one possible conclusion: Javier Vazquez should be deported to Canada.:tongue:

Tragg
06-18-2007, 01:30 PM
Vazquez is a victim of run support and bullpen gaffs. A breakdown:

April 19: Gave up leadoff double, MacDougal lets the run score. 3 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 3, no decision.

April 24: Gave up leadoff double, Thornton lets the run score. 5 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 6, no decision.

May 1: Gave up leadoff walk, got one out, Thornton lets the run score. 4 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 2, loss.

May 8: Gave up one run over 7 innings, 4 runs of support, bullpen blows it, no decision.

May 13: 6 IP, 4 ER, bullpen not a factor, 1 run of support, loss.

May 19: Game tied when he left (5 ER vs. 5 runs of support), no decision.

May 27: Two out, one on, Thornton lets the run score. 5 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 4, loss.

June 6: 4 ER, 1 run of support, loss

June 11: 3 ER, 0 runs in support, loss

June 17: 5 ER, 5 runs of support, no decision

A couple of those games are pinned directly on Vazquez but many of them were beyond his control. 1 run of support over two games? C'mon...
Sometimes you have to make your own breaks. How many innings is he pitching? With our bullpen, someone with Vasquez' ability needs to pitch like a man and complete his own games - or do a lot better than his usual effort of 6 innings.

PaulDrake
06-18-2007, 01:40 PM
Regarding Javier. If there was any way to deal Contreras instead I would do it in a heartbeat.

At least Javy gives you a better chance of winning 10 or 12 games a year and helping to anchor the back end of the rotation then Contreras.

No one really knows how old Jose is, or how many innings he threw all those years in Cuba.

Keep in mind that with the Sox potentially losing both Buehrle and Garland in the next two years, they are going to need some type of 'fairly reliable' starting pitching. Contreras probably won't be able to offer as much as Vasquez in the next three years.

Lip Vazquez is slightly below average at best, Contreras may be as old as grandma, Buehrle and Garland may seek greener pastures. What we have in the minors is slightly less than exciting. Am I the only one here just a tad concerned about this?

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 01:40 PM
In his last ten starts, the Sox are 1-9 counting his last loss.

And in those 10 starts, Vazquez is 1-5 (4 no decisions). It should be mentioned that in two of those losses, the Sox offense gave him 1 run of support. That's not 1 run per game (as pathetic as that is) but 1 run TOTAL.

SBSoxFan
06-18-2007, 01:42 PM
Sometimes you have to make your own breaks. How many innings is he pitching? With our bullpen, someone with Vasquez' ability needs to pitch like a man and complete his own games - or do a lot better than his usual effort of 6 innings.

He's pitched 84 innings in 13 starts. In the same number of starts, Garland has 90-1/3, Buerhle has 86, and Contreras has 75-2/3. That's pretty solid, Vazquez just can't be dominant for any extended period.

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 01:44 PM
Sometimes you have to make your own breaks. How many innings is he pitching? With our bullpen, someone with Vasquez' ability needs to pitch like a man and complete his own games - or do a lot better than his usual effort of 6 innings.

Vazquez is averaging 6.46 innings per start. He has pitched seven innings or more in 4 of his 13 starts.

For comparison, Garland leads the team with 6.92 innings per start, Buehrle follows with 6.62 and Contreras is at the bottom with 5.78. I'm not counting Danks or the 5th spot in general. Buehrle and Contreras have gone the distance once this season, the only Sox pitchers to do so.

SBSoxFan
06-18-2007, 01:53 PM
Vazquez is averaging 6.46 innings per start. He has pitched seven innings or more in 4 of his 13 starts.

For comparison, Garland leads the team with 6.95 innings per start, Buehrle follows with 6.62 and Contreras is at the bottom with 5.82. I'm not counting Danks or the 5th spot in general. Buehrle and Contreras have gone the distance once this season, the only Sox pitchers to do so.

I made some changes for ya. :smile:

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 01:55 PM
I made some changes for ya. :smile:

Garland's additional 0.03 innings per start adds up to pitching an additional out over the course of a season. Polished workhorse.

:tongue:

SBSoxFan
06-18-2007, 02:04 PM
Garland's additional 0.03 innings per start adds up to pitching an additional out over the course of a season. Polished workhorse.

:tongue:

I wasn't trying to be anal. It's a matter of how MLB has convoluted the math. The stats list Garland's innings pitched as 90.1. But that means he's pitched 90-1/3 or 90.333 innings this year, not 90.1. Now that I look closer, I see you actually rounded off to 90. Slacker!

dickallen15
06-18-2007, 02:05 PM
Garland's additional 0.03 innings per start adds up to pitching an additional out over the course of a season. Polished workhorse.

:tongue:
Since you seem to be a Vazquez fan and have excuses for all his failings this season, can you explain his below .500 record last year on a team that won 90 games in a season when he had the lead in all but 3 or 4 starts?

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 02:11 PM
Since you seem to be a Vazquez fan and have excuses for all his failings this season, can you explain his below .500 record last year on a team that won 90 games in a season when he had the lead in all but 3 or 4 starts?


http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1502372&postcount=152

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 02:22 PM
I wasn't trying to be anal. It's a matter of how MLB has convoluted the math. The stats list Garland's innings pitched as 90.1. But that means he's pitched 90-1/3 or 90.333 innings this year, not 90.1. Now that I look closer, I see you actually rounded off to 90. Slacker!

I have shamed us all.

SBSoxFan
06-18-2007, 02:25 PM
I have shamed us all.

Eh, you've got a ways to go before you match what's happening on the field.

dickallen15
06-18-2007, 02:50 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1502372&postcount=152

You conveniently left out his 9-6 record although sporting a 5.45 ERA through July of 2006. It all averaged out in the end. He is mediocre at best.

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 03:02 PM
You conveniently left out his 9-6 record although sporting a 5.45 ERA through July of 2006. It all averaged out in the end. He is mediocre at best.

No doubt he had some bad outings. But with as explosive as the 2006 offense was, why was it they failed so often to show up when Vasquez was pitching? 19 runs of support over 10 games, including 3 games with ZERO run support? Not much he can do about that.

Simply looking at his W-L record doesn't tell the whole story. Hell, his ERA was less than Buehrle's that season. He gave up the second fewest hits among the starters, second fewest home runs, had the most strikeouts, etc. but he also had the most walks, most HBP, etc. If anything, he is inconsistent.

dickallen15
06-18-2007, 03:11 PM
No doubt he had some bad outings. But with as explosive as the 2006 offense was, why was it they failed so often to show up when Vasquez was pitching? 19 runs of support over 10 games, including 3 games with ZERO run support? Not much he can do about that.

Simply looking at his W-L record doesn't tell the whole story. Hell, his ERA was less than Buehrle's that season. He gave up the second fewest hits among the starters, second fewest home runs, had the most strikeouts, etc. but he also had the most walks, most HBP, etc. If anything, he is inconsistent.
This is a pattern Vazquez has had since leaving Montreal. He was an All Star with the Yankees, but his second half was so disasterous, they thought he was hurt. He pitched some great games with the D-Backs, but other times they would have had just as much of a chance had I taken the mound. He'll always have a few games where just dominates, teasing us all, but in the end, it seems to come out the same. A record around .500 give or take a couple of games, a mediocre ERA and a nice strikeout rate to give hope for the next season. I still have no idea why he was extended 2 seasons before the White Sox lost control of him.

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 03:15 PM
I still have no idea why he was extended 2 seasons before the White Sox lost control of him.

At the rate pitching is going these days, the Sox got a good deal, especially for the number of innings he eats and no history of injuries (never on the DL). By having him locked it, the Sox have flexibility to

a) Keep him in the rotation if he blossoms

b) Trade him if he struggles or the Sox are out of it

upperdeckusc
06-18-2007, 05:15 PM
Vazquez is a victim of run support and bullpen gaffs. A breakdown:

April 19: Gave up leadoff double, MacDougal lets the run score. 3 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 3, no decision.

April 24: Gave up leadoff double, Thornton lets the run score. 5 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 6, no decision.

May 1: Gave up leadoff walk, got one out, Thornton lets the run score. 4 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 2, loss.

May 8: Gave up one run over 7 innings, 4 runs of support, bullpen blows it, no decision.

May 13: 6 IP, 4 ER, bullpen not a factor, 1 run of support, loss.

May 19: Game tied when he left (5 ER vs. 5 runs of support), no decision.

May 27: Two out, one on, Thornton lets the run score. 5 ER (bullpen coughed up 1), offense offers run support of 4, loss.

June 6: 4 ER, 1 run of support, loss

June 11: 3 ER, 0 runs in support, loss

June 17: 5 ER, 5 runs of support, no decision

A couple of those games are pinned directly on Vazquez but many of them were beyond his control. 1 run of support over two games? C'mon...

I could not agree with this anymore. Now I know alot of people expect alot more from this guy because of the new contract and because we gave up Chris Young for him, but this post says it all. Do I wish he'd be a stopper for us when were on a losing streak and throw up 8 shutout innings? Of course. But the bottom line is he DOES keep us in every game that he's pitching. The last 2 months of last season and alotta games this season, the bullpen has let almost all the of inherited runners that Javy left for them to score. I really don't think trading him is an option. His contract isn't too bad, and I'd rather trade Contreras and have a relatively young and healthy Javy + a rookie replacing Contreras next yr then a rookie replacing Javy and an old ineffective injury prone Contreras leading our staff. I'm probably one of the biggest Javy supporters out there as far as sox fans go, and I do agree he could be more mentally tough. But I still am confident when he takes the mound that he'll get some K's and keep us in the game. Sometimes he goes in ruts when he leaves his ball up. I would hope thats when Coop steps in and just says to follow thru or stay on top or whatever is causing it. I still stick to my idea of trading Contreras, and at least attempting to resign Buehrle b4 the trade deadline. If he doesnt want to, thanks for the memories....

JB98
06-18-2007, 05:31 PM
I could not agree with this anymore. Now I know alot of people expect alot more from this guy because of the new contract and because we gave up Chris Young for him, but this post says it all. Do I wish he'd be a stopper for us when were on a losing streak and throw up 8 shutout innings? Of course. But the bottom line is he DOES keep us in every game that he's pitching. The last 2 months of last season and alotta games this season, the bullpen has let almost all the of inherited runners that Javy left for them to score. I really don't think trading him is an option. His contract isn't too bad, and I'd rather trade Contreras and have a relatively young and healthy Javy + a rookie replacing Contreras next yr then a rookie replacing Javy and an old ineffective injury prone Contreras leading our staff. I'm probably one of the biggest Javy supporters out there as far as sox fans go, and I do agree he could be more mentally tough. But I still am confident when he takes the mound that he'll get some K's and keep us in the game. Sometimes he goes in ruts when he leaves his ball up. I would hope thats when Coop steps in and just says to follow thru or stay on top or whatever is causing it. I still stick to my idea of trading Contreras, and at least attempting to resign Buehrle b4 the trade deadline. If he doesnt want to, thanks for the memories....

When a starting pitcher is given a lead, it is his job to protect the lead. Not just "keep us in the game."

Vazquez gives up leads constantly, and yesterday is only the latest example.

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 06:03 PM
When a starting pitcher is given a lead, it is his job to protect the lead. Not just "keep us in the game."

Vazquez gives up leads constantly, and yesterday is only the latest example.

Of all those games listed above, he only left three of those games while trailing. All the other ones were ties or he had the lead.

And those three games where he left while trailing? Offense offered two combined runs of support compared to 11 runs allowed. That's just a touch over three runs a game. Should be good enough to keep the team in it.

itsnotrequired
06-18-2007, 06:55 PM
A breakdown of two Sox pitchers:

Pitcher 1:

Gave up lead, left trailing: once May 1

Left tied: once May 13

Gave up lead, left with tie: three times May 19, May 27, June 1


Pitcher 2:

Gave up lead, left trailing: three times April 29, May 12, June 5

Gave up lead, left with lead: once May 18

Gave up lead, left with tie: once May 25

Name them...

Hitmen77
06-18-2007, 08:17 PM
At the rate pitching is going these days, the Sox got a good deal, especially for the number of innings he eats and no history of injuries (never on the DL). By having him locked it, the Sox have flexibility to

a) Keep him in the rotation if he blossoms

b) Trade him if he struggles or the Sox are out of it

I agree. The Sox deal with Javy was not necessarily a bad one for the team. He is far from untradeable.

palehozenychicty
06-18-2007, 08:21 PM
Vazquez is what he is. Good enough to be traded again and again. :D:

Tragg
06-18-2007, 08:26 PM
As frustraing as Vasquez is, he's still a decent starting pitcher and I doubt we'd get his value in return in a trade. And he could become a dominator - at least he has the talent. He wouldn't be atop my trade priority list.

I didn't like the trade at the time, but Young hasn't exactly done much yet; I'll wait until (or if) he turns into a 30/30 player before shedding too many tears of lament. Meanwhile, we've had a starting pitcher for 1.5 seasons.

TDog
06-18-2007, 08:38 PM
...
Jose has had 11 unearned runs scored vs him- jose deserves a better record
Javvy has zero unearned runs just like burls...

Pitchers who give up a lot of unearned runs are characterized as tough luck pitchers, but usually they are to blame for the runs even if they are unearned. Sometimes a fielder makes an error with two outs to allow a run to score, but more often a pitcher will give up hits after errors have put runners in scoring position. When I was a kid, the Cubs scored 10 unearned runs in the first against the Astros after a two-out error extended the inning. The bases-loaded walks that followed were not the fault of the defense. Some pitchers seem to pitch as if unearned runs don't count.

Pitchers who give up a lot of unearned runs are generally not pitchers you want to see on the mound when the game is on the line.

balke
06-18-2007, 08:44 PM
I don't ever worry about the trade the Sox made. I do believe that the ERA and Wins Javy has been putting up for his salary is frustrating. We're paying Javy money that could go towards a player worth that much money in the offseason. That's how I feel when I think about the contract.

I understand he isn't a problem for the Sox on the field. But the #'s are below league average and the salary is above. Its one cut in payroll that would put the Sox below 100 Mil.

His career has gone on so long now, that I can't take the potential talk anymore. Coop has his hands full, I don't see how he is going to fix anything with Javy. I'm sure its all stuff he's heard before that he does nothing about when it comes to tipping pitches.

I never like the pitcher who pitches to the competition. I feel like that's what he does, if he gets the lead he gives up the 2 run shot. If he needs to be lights out, he will. Even if the bullpen is adding runs to his total, those are runners he put on base. That's why he gets charged for them. It seems like he rarely leaves the game with the Sox in a great comfortable position to win. (2-3 runs lead with no runners on base).

Whatever got him that contract hasn't resulted in a good record or a good ERA. But I guess eating up innings is something he brings that a rookie wouldn't.

MRM
06-19-2007, 12:57 AM
Think that psychiatrist has any trade value then?

That's really disappointing. What did the Sox get themselves into with this guy? I'd rather spend 22 on Santana, then 12 on Javy.

Than, even.

balke
06-19-2007, 01:06 AM
Than, even.


Is that a sentence fragment with a comma splice? ...I win?

Nellie_Fox
06-19-2007, 01:08 AM
Is that a sentence fragment with a coma splice? How do you splice a coma?

balke
06-19-2007, 01:13 AM
How do you splice a coma?


Well played ser.

MRM
06-19-2007, 02:18 AM
Is that a sentence fragment with a comma splice? ...I win?

And I thought Al Gore was good at dancing around the truth...

<Take a few days off to think about the wisdom of violating the "NO POLITICS" rule...>

Is a "comma splice" similar to an admission of not knowing the difference between the words "then" and "than"? They have very different meanings, ya know.

MRM
06-19-2007, 02:20 AM
How do you splice a coma?

With scotch tape... and a hope your explaination confuses people enough to hide your ignorance.

balke
06-19-2007, 08:08 AM
With scotch tape... and a hope your explaination confuses people enough to hide your ignorance.

Someone needs a nap.

veeter
06-19-2007, 09:45 AM
Plain and simple, he's not a winner. I would love to see him dealt.

California Sox
06-19-2007, 12:57 PM
Someone needs a nap.

And spell check. "Explaination?"

dickallen15
06-19-2007, 01:12 PM
At the rate pitching is going these days, the Sox got a good deal, especially for the number of innings he eats and no history of injuries (never on the DL). By having him locked it, the Sox have flexibility to

a) Keep him in the rotation if he blossoms

b) Trade him if he struggles or the Sox are out of it
At this time, Javier Vazquez is the highest paid pitcher in White Sox history. Too bad is for a #5-like starter performance.

itsnotrequired
06-19-2007, 01:18 PM
At this time, Javier Vazquez is the highest paid pitcher in White Sox history. Too bad is for a #5-like starter performance.

Are you talking about overall contract or just this season? He's making $12.5 million this season but $2.5 million of that is from the Diamondbacks. So the Sox are out of pocket $10 million, the same as Garland. I doubt the Sox would have paid $12.5 million for Vasquez.

If you're talking about the total dollar amount of his recent contract, that really isn't a fair comparison. How much would Garland have gotten for a three year contract if he signed the same time as Vasquez? Or Buehrle, for that matter? The market is insane right now and Vasquez's contract reflects that insanity. Wait until you see what Buehrle will get.

dickallen15
06-19-2007, 01:23 PM
Are you talking about overall contract or just this season? He's making $12.5 million this season but $2.5 million of that is from the Diamondbacks. So the Sox are out of pocket $10 million, the same as Garland. I doubt the Sox would have paid $12.5 million for Vasquez.

If you're talking about the total dollar amount of his recent contract, that really isn't a fair comparison. How much would Garland have gotten for a three year contract if he signed the same time as Vasquez? Or Buehrle, for that matter? The market is insane right now and Vasquez's contract reflects that insanity. Wait until you see what Buehrle will get.
But it won't be given to him by the White Sox.

itsnotrequired
06-19-2007, 01:34 PM
But it won't be given to him by the White Sox.

If Buehrle gets the type of offer I believe he will get from another team, he will no longer be with the White Sox...but it won't be because of Vasquez.

dickallen15
06-19-2007, 01:36 PM
If Buehrle gets the type of offer I believe he will get from another team, he will no longer be with the White Sox...but it won't be because of Vasquez.
Maybe, maybe not. If the Sox didn't have that $34.5 million obligation after this season, there actually might be a better offer for Buerhle, although I think the years are the problem.

itsnotrequired
06-19-2007, 01:39 PM
Maybe, maybe not. If the Sox didn't have that $34.5 million obligation after this season, there actually might be a better offer for Buerhle, although I think the years are the problem.

Years will be the deal breaker but it wouldn't surprise me if money became an issue as well. Buehrle will likely command $16 million+ next season and I don't know if the front office wants to put that many eggs in one basket.

Hitmen77
06-19-2007, 01:42 PM
And I thought Al Gore was good at dancing around the truth...

Is a "comma splice" similar to an admission of not knowing the difference between the words "then" and "than"? They have very different meanings, ya know.


We don't care about your personal politics.

balke
06-19-2007, 05:38 PM
Years will be the deal breaker but it wouldn't surprise me if money became an issue as well. Buehrle will likely command $16 million+ next season and I don't know if the front office wants to put that many eggs in one basket.

He's 3 million better than Vazquez in my book. It really looks foolish now to think that 13 mil could be put towards Buehrle. One pitcher above average and young, the other aging and below average.

Jim Thome is the only player making more than Vazquez. I don't necessarily see why a DH is making that kind of money either. Is that all paid by the Sox, or do the Phillies pay part of his near 16 million?

The Immigrant
06-19-2007, 05:54 PM
Jim Thome is the only player making more than Vazquez. I don't necessarily see why a DH is making that kind of money either. Is that all paid by the Sox, or do the Phillies pay part of his near 16 million?

The Sox got $22 million from the Phillies to offset the costs of Thome's contract for years 2006-2008 ($12.5 million, $14 million, and $14 million, respectively) and the cost of his 2009 buyout ($3 million). I would expect that the Phillies are paying this money to the Sox in installments rather than as a single lump sum payment in 2005, and assuming these are equal installment payments the portion of Thome's annual salary paid directly by the White Sox should be around $7 million.

itsnotrequired
06-19-2007, 06:28 PM
He's 3 million better than Vazquez in my book. It really looks foolish now to think that 13 mil could be put towards Buehrle. One pitcher above average and young, the other aging and below average.

Ugh. The Sox offered a deal similar to what Vazquez got and he turned it down. What should they have done, smashed his face into the contract and say "You sign this ****in' contract or we'll break your ****in' head!"?

balke
06-19-2007, 07:39 PM
Ugh. The Sox offered a deal similar to what Vazquez got and he turned it down. What should they have done, smashed his face into the contract and say "You sign this ****in' contract or we'll break your ****in' head!"?


They should've offered more money. And yes, I did believe that at the time regardless of his #'s last season. That's not really the point though, the point is that the Vazquez signing hurts now. The Sox have dumped a lot of money on a player who's shown a +4.30 ERA in the NL instead of paying that little bit more for a younger pitcher who's career ERA is in the 3's in the AL, more Specifically U.S. Cellular Field.

balke
06-19-2007, 07:41 PM
The Sox got $22 million from the Phillies to offset the costs of Thome's contract for years 2006-2008 ($12.5 million, $14 million, and $14 million, respectively) and the cost of his 2009 buyout ($3 million). I would expect that the Phillies are paying this money to the Sox in installments rather than as a single lump sum payment in 2005, and assuming these are equal installment payments the portion of Thome's annual salary paid directly by the White Sox should be around $7 million.

That's what I figured. I knew he was 7 for the initial year, but not all the way through the contract.

itsnotrequired
06-19-2007, 08:23 PM
They should've offered more money. And yes, I did believe that at the time regardless of his #'s last season. That's not really the point though, the point is that the Vazquez signing hurts now. The Sox have dumped a lot of money on a player who's shown a +4.30 ERA in the NL instead of paying that little bit more for a younger pitcher who's career ERA is in the 3's in the AL, more Specifically U.S. Cellular Field.

Did they even have more money to offer? Did they have any idea the market would get as insane as it did? Lots of behind the scenes things going on that we have no idea about. To suggest the Sox should have simply "offered more money" as a solution is absurd.

And now, I am off to the game!

balke
06-19-2007, 08:33 PM
Did they even have more money to offer? Did they have any idea the market would get as insane as it did? Lots of behind the scenes things going on that we have no idea about. To suggest the Sox should have simply "offered more money" as a solution is absurd.

And now, I am off to the game!

Have fun at the game. I don't think offering more money is absurd at all. He was pretty much lowballed on that deal, and a lot of people said it at the time the number was released.