PDA

View Full Version : Reconsidering Vazquez: Some Kudos for KW


Frater Perdurabo
07-07-2007, 06:57 PM
Looking over the AL ERA leaders, I noticed that Javier Vazquez is #17 in ERA among qualified starters in the AL (34th in the MLB). Yes, he's maddeningly inconsistent at times. But his 3.70 ERA is very good, especially given that he throws a lot of pitches at the Cell.

KW had the hots of Vazquez long before he actually acquired him. Although Chris Young could have helped the Sox in the outfield this year, Vazquez is helping the Sox right now.

balke
07-07-2007, 07:00 PM
I don't know how that makes Kudos for KW. If he gives a full season or 2 I'll listen. If we wanna go for a half season record, Kenny blew it on the team overall.

lostfan
07-07-2007, 07:02 PM
Those who hate Vazquez will continue to hate Vazquez, regardless of what he does this year.

Frater Perdurabo
07-07-2007, 07:04 PM
I'm not debating other moves. I've already said I'm going to condemn KW if he refuses to sign Buehrle to the offer said to be on the table (4/$56M+NTC), and that I'll praise him if he does sign Mark.

But for all the flak Vazquez has gotten - much of it deserved - he's the second-best pitcher on the Sox this year. He's performing better than Garland, and that's no knock on Jon.

Even if it costs $40 million to keep them all, a 1-2-3 of Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez is as good as any other 1-2-3 in the AL. Yes, there are better pitchers out there, and better 1-2 combos, too. But I'll take these three as the core of a rebuilding/reloading effort or a playoff run anytime.

lostfan
07-07-2007, 07:07 PM
I'm not debating other moves. I've already said I'm going to condemn KW if he refuses to sign Buehrle to the offer said to be on the table (4/$56M+NTC), and that I'll praise him if he does sign Mark.

But for all the flak Vazquez has gotten - much of it deserved - he's the second-best pitcher on the Sox this year. He's performing better than Garland, and that's no knock on Jon.

Even if it costs $40 million to keep them all, a 1-2-3 of Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez is as good as any other 1-2-3 in the AL. Yes, there are better pitchers out there, and better 1-2 combos, too. But I'll take these three as the core of a rebuilding/reloading effort or a playoff run anytime.
Performing better than Garland? He's been good, but I don't know about that. Garland was cruising with an ERA very close to Buehrle's until that debacle last night that could've been the worst outing of his career.

Tragg
07-07-2007, 07:24 PM
Even if it costs $40 million to keep them all, a 1-2-3 of Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez is as good as any other 1-2-3 in the AL. Yes, there are better pitchers out there, and better 1-2 combos, too. But I'll take these three as the core of a rebuilding/reloading effort or a playoff run anytime.

And that core wouldn't need to be rebuilt. It's ours. Many putative contenders wish they had a core like that. The only thing is that core is really the only signficant trade value we have. (unless Jose would knock out a couple of good outings).

I think if you lined all of the Sox players up and asked what teams would give in return, and they were all signed to equal contracts, Vasquez would bring the most in a trade.

MrX
07-07-2007, 07:24 PM
Quality starts:
Garland: 11
Vazquez: 8

Chez
07-07-2007, 07:28 PM
I believe Javy's recent stretch is primarily due to the fact that he has stayed away from the multiple walk inning. His control lately has been great.

balke
07-07-2007, 08:49 PM
But for all the flak Vazquez has gotten - much of it deserved - he's the second-best pitcher on the Sox this year. He's performing better than Garland, and that's no knock on Jon.

That's just a flat-0ut lie. One bad start and Vazquez is better? Garland was the best pitcher this season on the Sox until last start. "Vazquez has been good so far this season", that should be the name of this thread.

Frater Perdurabo
07-07-2007, 10:43 PM
That's just a flat-0ut lie. One bad start and Vazquez is better? Garland was the best pitcher this season on the Sox until last start. "Vazquez has been good so far this season", that should be the name of this thread.

I'll admit it's very close and that Garland's implosion on Friday really hurt his ERA. But the fact of the matter is that you can't exclude an outlier just because it doesn't fit the norm. At present, the half-way point of the season, Vazquez has a slightly lower ERA. We'll see where they are at the end of the year. Still, a 3.70 ERA in the AL is very good.

For the purposes of a hypothetical playoff series (please note I'm not arguing that the Sox are going to make the playoffs this year!), I'd probably have Buehrle start Game 1, Vazquez start Game 2 and Garland start Game 3. Vazquez's ability to throw harder and rack up Ks would break up the slightly softer-tossing, ground ball inducing Buehrle and Garland.

oeo
07-07-2007, 10:45 PM
KW had the hots of Vazquez long before he actually acquired him. Although Chris Young could have helped the Sox in the outfield this year, Vazquez is helping the Sox right now.

Chris Young would be helping us how? Right now he's looking like a complete bust. Of course he still has time, as he's young, but he's been successful like Brian Anderson has been successful.

lostfan
07-07-2007, 10:50 PM
Chris Young would be helping us how? Right now he's looking like a complete bust. Of course he still has time, as he's young, but he's been successful like Brian Anderson has been successful.
I have a friend who has complete man-love for Young that would crucify you for saying that if it didn't trigger a psychotic break first.

Frontman
07-07-2007, 10:51 PM
Javy has been good, but he's still a case of playing "blackjack." (And no, not THAT blackjack.) Meaning you may win and might even win big, but there are going to be times he's going to go bust on you.

So far, I have enjoyed watching Javy games. I don't even get nervous come the 5/6th innings anymore. But Javy has been a strong #3 on this rotation.

Granted, we need a #4, as Danks is #5 (and nor should we expect more from him this year, he's been developing nicely.) If Garland bounces back after the AS break (of course he had to be lit up and then damn near have 10 or 11 days between starts to shake it off) he's a solid #2.

Who knows if we'll have a #1 in a week.

veeter
07-07-2007, 11:04 PM
Chris Young would be helping us how? Right now he's looking like a complete bust. Of course he still has time, as he's young, but he's been successful like Brian Anderson has been successful.Exactly. Just because Phil Rogers or whoever, keeps saying the guy is great, does not make it true. What he is, is a guy that will hit .230, hit 18 homers and drive in 60 runs. All the while striking out at an alarming pace. AZ can have him.

Hitmen77
07-07-2007, 11:04 PM
Javy seems to go through stretches in a season where he looks brilliant....only to have him slide back to his meltdown mode. It's a roller coaster with him. The key is to get him to pitch like he is now for an extended period.

JB98
07-07-2007, 11:10 PM
Trade Vazquez now. He's the one starting pitcher we have who will net us two top prospects in return. Javy is throwing well at this time, and he's under contract for three more years. In this market, he's reasonably priced. One of the contenders will see him as a good acquisition for the present and future. We can get multiple players in return.

You aren't going to get two top prospects for Buehrle, because he won't consider signing an extension with anyone other than the Sox. Teams won't part with top talent just to get 12 starts from Buehrle for the rest of the year.

Sign Buehrle. Trade Contreras, trade Vazquez.

oeo
07-07-2007, 11:12 PM
Trade Vazquez now. He's the one starting pitcher we have who will net us two top prospects in return. Javy is throwing well at this time, and he's under contract for three more years. In this market, he's reasonably priced. One of the contenders will see him as a good acquisition for the present and future. We can get multiple players in return.

You aren't going to get two top prospects for Buehrle, because he won't consider signing an extension with anyone other than the Sox. Teams won't part with top talent just to get 12 starts from Buehrle for the rest of the year.

Sign Buehrle. Trade Contreras, trade Vazquez.

And have three young pitchers in the rotation next year? Pass.

JB98
07-07-2007, 11:18 PM
And have three young pitchers in the rotation next year? Pass.

No, you get a stopgap veteran on the free-agent market and hope he gives you 12 wins at the back of the rotation.

We need to rebuild our entire outfield by next year. Vazquez is the chip we have who can help us do that. And we know Javy. He's pitching great right now. He'll have another bad slump before the year is over.

His value is HIGH right now. Take advantage, KW.

Tragg
07-08-2007, 12:44 AM
Sign Buehrle. Trade Contreras, trade Vazquez.
I'd prefer that to not signing Buehrle. I'd prefer to just trade Contreras. If we need to dump 2, I'd trade Garland before Vazquez (one reason is that Garland's contract is up next year...I don't want to go through this dog and pony show again).

JB98
07-08-2007, 12:50 AM
I'd prefer that to not signing Buehrle. I'd prefer to just trade Contreras. If we need to dump 2, I'd trade Garland before Vazquez (one reason is that Garland's contract is up next year...I don't want to go through this dog and pony show again).

I just thought I'd throw another idea out there. I hear Rongey on the radio stating the Sox are bad, and keeping Buehrle isn't going to change that. For this year, I would agree with that.

But what about next year? Buehrle is not the valuable trading chip that some people make him out to be. He's a 3-month rental. Whoever acquires him gets him for 12-14 starts and possibly for the postseason. Is anyone going to give us two quality players/prospects in exchange for that? My feeling is no. In other words, trading Buehrle is not going to change the fact that the Sox are bad either.

Someone WILL give us two quality players/prospects for Vazquez, because he's under contract and could fill a hole in the rotation for some contending team not only this year, but in the future as well. And we could plug our holes in the outfield and/or middle infield with such a deal.

Javy, not Buehrle, Dye or Contreras, is our most valuable trading chip, IMO.

CLR01
07-08-2007, 12:54 AM
Those who hate Vazquez will continue to hate Vazquez, regardless of what he does this year.

The Sox can't pay Buehrle $14 million/yr. but the Sox can pay Vazquez $11.5 million to be barely a .500 pitcher. Thats something to build your rotation around.:rolleyes:

The only thing consistent about Vazquez is his mediocrity and a start every five days.

Daver
07-08-2007, 12:56 AM
I'd prefer that to not signing Buehrle. I'd prefer to just trade Contreras. If we need to dump 2, I'd trade Garland before Vazquez (one reason is that Garland's contract is up next year...I don't want to go through this dog and pony show again).

You're a fool.

crazyozzie02
07-08-2007, 01:20 AM
The Sox can't pay Buehrle $14 million/yr. but the Sox can pay Vazquez $11.5 million to be barely a .500 pitcher. Thats something to build your rotation around.:rolleyes:

The only thing consistent about Vazquez is his mediocrity and a start every five days.

Thank you. I was thinking of how to put what i wanted to say in the best words, but you did it for me. Vazquez getting that 3 year extension (thus making it a 4 year deal) is crazy, but for a man that has been part of your team since 2000, who is a class guy, who is a team player, who never complains even now, and who the fans absolutely adore is so crazy i dont even think there is a word for it yet. **** Vazquez. I want Mark

decolores9628
07-08-2007, 03:45 AM
Javier's ERA is 3.70, which is nice, don't get me wrong. Mark's ERA is 3.03, which is a whole lot better. We gave Javy a 3 year extention before he was even good this year at 11.5 million a year on avg. Mark only wants 2.5 year more for basically the same deal. Mark has been good for about 6 years, all in the AL. Javy has about 2 or 3 good years in his whole career, 0 of those in the AL. I don't even care about hijacking a Javy thread. We NEED to sign Mark.

EDIT: If you knew me, you would know that I am a huge Javy supporter. Hes easily one of my top 3 players on the team and my top 10 in baseball.

jabrch
07-08-2007, 10:49 AM
I just thought I'd throw another idea out there. I hear Rongey on the radio stating the Sox are bad, and keeping Buehrle isn't going to change that. For this year, I would agree with that.

But what about next year? Buehrle is not the valuable trading chip that some people make him out to be. He's a 3-month rental. Whoever acquires him gets him for 12-14 starts and possibly for the postseason. Is anyone going to give us two quality players/prospects in exchange for that? My feeling is no. In other words, trading Buehrle is not going to change the fact that the Sox are bad either.

Someone WILL give us two quality players/prospects for Vazquez, because he's under contract and could fill a hole in the rotation for some contending team not only this year, but in the future as well. And we could plug our holes in the outfield and/or middle infield with such a deal.

Javy, not Buehrle, Dye or Contreras, is our most valuable trading chip, IMO.


I still think that some team, as we get closer to the deadline, will decide that the Sox aren't going to trade him cheaply, and that Mark is the difference between winning it all and just having a great season. At that point, someone will pony up KWs price.

jabrch
07-08-2007, 10:54 AM
Mark only wants 2.5 year more for basically the same deal.

For the millionth time - it isn't about the $. Nobody is saying that 14mm is too much - it is a bargain for a LHP with a career ERA/WHIP of 3.80/1.25 in the AL in a hitters park. It's about Mark wanting a full NTC and the club not wanting to be in a position where, at some point, they can deal him if that's the route they choose.

Tragg
07-08-2007, 11:20 AM
You're a fool.
Yea? I support a lot of foolish things, including hoping the Sox sign MB or keep their pitchers, or, if they have to trade one, get rid of the one who'll be a FA next year. Color me foolish.


It's about Mark wanting a full NTC and the club not wanting to be in a position where, at some point, they can deal him if that's the route they choose.
Didn't the Sox reject Mark's offer to replace a ntc with a money penalty?

jabrch
07-08-2007, 11:37 AM
Didn't the Sox reject Mark's offer to replace a ntc with a money penalty?

If you have seen that reported anywhere, please let me know. I don't recall hearing of that.

JB98
07-08-2007, 12:46 PM
I still think that some team, as we get closer to the deadline, will decide that the Sox aren't going to trade him cheaply, and that Mark is the difference between winning it all and just having a great season. At that point, someone will pony up KWs price.

I don't agree. The whole league knows that KW has to trade Buehrle. I think KW is going to be sorely disappointed when this is all over.

jabrch
07-08-2007, 12:54 PM
I don't agree. The whole league knows that KW has to trade Buehrle. I think KW is going to be sorely disappointed when this is all over.

Why does he HAVE to trade him?

If he doesn't get enough, he can continue to negotiate with him through the summer and fall. If that fails, he can let him walk for a 1st and a supplemental 1st.

I don't see KW trading him unless he gets a deal with at least one top tier guy who is either ready right now for the majors or will be by next season.

Tragg
07-08-2007, 01:16 PM
Why does he HAVE to trade him?

If he doesn't get enough, he can continue to negotiate with him through the summer and fall. If that fails, he can let him walk for a 1st and a supplemental 1st.

I don't see KW trading him unless he gets a deal with at least one top tier guy who is either ready right now for the majors or will be by next season.

Man you're lowering your sights for the return on MB. It's now draft choices (may not be a first rounder - doesn't it depend on who signs him?) or one top prospect. Draft choices are more scattershots than prospects. 1 isn't nearly enough. That would be a shame. And what do they have to negoitate about for the next 3 months? The same ntc?

If we don't sign him this month, I think Williams will trade him...I don't know what he'll get. The ESPN guys are yankee/red sox fans, so I don't trust them....I suspect it's more than what they say. Also, he should have a feel right now for what he can get. Williams could take a few B prospects and swear they're A prospects. (like Scheuler did in White Flag, when only 1 A prospect was included). And we might get 2 As. There are a lot of teams with a chance, which should drive up the bidding.

Sign him.

Re your other question, isn't that what the reports were about yesterday - putting an extra year and $17 mill if the Sox trade him?

The Dude
07-08-2007, 01:22 PM
Those who hate Vazquez will continue to hate Vazquez, regardless of what he does this year.

Unfortunately, yes they will. See ChiSoxMike.:cool:

rdivaldi
07-08-2007, 01:32 PM
I don't agree. The whole league knows that KW has to trade Buehrle. I think KW is going to be sorely disappointed when this is all over.

:?:

KW doesn't have to trade him, he can keep him for the rest of the season and get the draft picks if he wants. Just because ESPN says we have to trade him to the Red Sox doesn't mean we have to.

jabrch
07-08-2007, 01:53 PM
Re your other question, isn't that what the reports were about yesterday - putting an extra year and $17 mill if the Sox trade him?

I wasn't around yesterday much. got a link?

I'd not only do that, but I'd also escalate each year in the deal if he gets traded if I were KW.

Are you saying Mark propsed that there be no NTC, but a single year and 17mm added on at the end if he got traded? I didn't hear it - but if that's the case then I'd be shocked if this doesn't get done.

jabrch
07-08-2007, 02:02 PM
Man you're lowering your sights for the return on MB. It's now draft choices (may not be a first rounder - doesn't it depend on who signs him?) or one top prospect. Draft choices are more scattershots than prospects. 1 isn't nearly enough. That would be a shame. And what do they have to negoitate about for the next 3 months? The same ntc?


I'm not lowering any sights. I'm just arguing that you are not forced to trade him if you don't like what you are getting.

And as far as why negotiate 3 more months - you do that because you have enough common ground that you can find a middle point eventually and make everyone happy.

If the Sox (as some here have proposed) are just putting on a show and don't want to sign Mark, then they will trade him. But if they really want to sign him, and there are no trade offers that are good enough, they will keep negotiating, try and get something done, and in the event that they fail to do that, walk away from this with 2 picks between 15 and 40 in addition to their own 1st (assumedly high) and rebuild that way.

(I'll save everyone the time - I know prospects never turn out and this is hopeless.)

Traggg - Really...honestly...at the end of the day, I don't give a damn. I'm wholly unattached to any single player on this team relative to my attachement to the uniform. There are some I like more than others - but none who I like so much that I'd side with them over the club. If Mark refuses to stay because of the NTC, then I wish him well wherever he goes. I hope someone gives him 7 years, 17 million per, and full NTC and I hope he is very happy. I'll cheer for the next guy to put on #56 the same way I cheered for this guy.

Lip Man 1
07-08-2007, 02:02 PM
Jab:

That's exactly what Mark proposed and the Sox rejected it. Here's the story that has the details:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070707soxgamer,1,5574329.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip

champagne030
07-08-2007, 02:15 PM
Jab:

That's exactly what Mark proposed and the Sox rejected it. Here's the story that has the details:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070707soxgamer,1,5574329.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip

Lies, lies and more lies.

:sahaf

jabrch
07-08-2007, 02:16 PM
Jab:

That's exactly what Mark proposed and the Sox rejected it. Here's the story that has the details:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070707soxgamer,1,5574329.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip


ESPN.com reported the rejected overture was a four-year, $56 million deal without a no-trade clause—but if Buehrle was traded, then a $17 million option for 2012 would kick in.

Lip, have we seen/heard any confirmation of this from any source other than an ESPN report? That's awful bizzare.

If that's the case - and I still don't buy it - then I am really confused.

Tragg
07-08-2007, 02:40 PM
I'm wholly unattached to any single player on this team relative to my attachement to the uniform. I hear ya. I just think this guy helps that uniform.



I hope it isn't MB we trade, but I do think we will get some decent return. Too many tight races, a lot of teams in contention, too many pooping pitchers, all works to our benefit.

At this moment I'm watch Alomar for the mets...yes, teams have their flaws.

jabrch
07-08-2007, 02:42 PM
I hear ya. I just think this guy helps that uniform.



I hope it isn't MB we trade, but I do think we will get some decent return. Too many tight races, a lot of teams in contention, too many pooping pitchers, all works to our benefit.

Agreed - 100% - on both points.

Bobby Jenks
07-08-2007, 02:44 PM
Exactly. Just because Phil Rogers or whoever, keeps saying the guy is great, does not make it true. What he is, is a guy that will hit .230, hit 18 homers and drive in 60 runs. All the while striking out at an alarming pace. AZ can have him.

Young is a young,5 tool player. Considering the state of this team,i would gladly take Young over Javy

beckett21
07-08-2007, 02:46 PM
I wasn't around yesterday much. got a link?

I'd not only do that, but I'd also escalate each year in the deal if he gets traded if I were KW.

Are you saying Mark propsed that there be no NTC, but a single year and 17mm added on at the end if he got traded? I didn't hear it - but if that's the case then I'd be shocked if this doesn't get done.

Here's another link (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7001468) from Ken Rosenthal.

This is what added so much fuel to the fire last night and why this is so maddening.

jabrch
07-08-2007, 02:53 PM
Young is a young,5 tool player.

Bull****.

Young has not hit for average on any level. Players like Young don't translate well to the major league level.

jabrch
07-08-2007, 02:55 PM
Here's another link (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7001468) from Ken Rosenthal.

This is what added so much fuel to the fire last night and why this is so maddening.

I am having a hard time buying that without hearing it from someone involved from either side.

What do you think Beck? You are a fairly levelheaded guy.

beckett21
07-08-2007, 03:30 PM
I am having a hard time buying that without hearing it from someone involved from either side.

What do you think Beck? You are a fairly levelheaded guy.

I've been on record in the past as being behind Kenny and virtually all of his moves beginning in '04, including his most recent ones involving Vazquez, Thome, Garcia, etc.

This one I strongly disagree with, if it comes to pass. I really can't fathom why the Sox are dropping the ball here. Obviously we don't have all of the facts, but from what we have to go on, the Sox appear to have their mind made up.

I could see it if he was in his mid-30's, an injury risk, or a troublemaker. Mark is none of those things. His demands are more than reasonable given today's market and what he brings to the table. I just don't get it.

If Kenny has something better up his sleeve, great. But I can't see that happening either.

rdivaldi
07-08-2007, 04:34 PM
Bull****.

Young has not hit for average on any level. Players like Young don't translate well to the major league level.

I usually side with you jabrch, but Young is oozing with talent and could easily end up being a 5 tool player. Don't forget that he progressed through our system very quickly and was playing against guys with much more experience than him.

But anyway Javy deserves some major props for his performances this year. Unlike last year I have a lot of confidence when he toes the bump.

Frontman
07-08-2007, 04:38 PM
Two complete games from Javy, and a very great performance yet again from him.

Oh man, we needed that going into AL break.

ShoelessJoeS
07-08-2007, 04:42 PM
Javy kicks ass, plain and simple.

sox1970
07-08-2007, 04:44 PM
Javy kicks ass, plain and simple.

Trade him now!!!!

ShoelessJoeS
07-08-2007, 04:53 PM
Trade him now!!!!With the way he's been throwing + his contract, I'm sure he could bring in a boatload. But **** that, keep him!!

Buehrle
Garland
Vazquez

Minus Jon's Friday blunder...all have been pitching like aces. If only we could go back to mid-May and start over :redneck

Frontman
07-08-2007, 05:05 PM
With the way he's been throwing + his contract, I'm sure he could bring in a boatload. But **** that, keep him!!

Buehrle
Garland
Vazquez

Minus Jon's Friday blunder...all have been pitching like aces. If only we could go back to mid-May and start over :redneck


We might not have to "turn back the clock" as you never know what will happen when it comes to baseball.

You never can tell.

balke
07-08-2007, 09:15 PM
I usually side with you jabrch, but Young is oozing with talent and could easily end up being a 5 tool player. Don't forget that he progressed through our system very quickly and was playing against guys with much more experience than him.

But anyway Javy deserves some major props for his performances this year. Unlike last year I have a lot of confidence when he toes the bump.


Luis Terrero is a 5-tool player. I don't like Young, especially where they have him now, leadoff. People just love Hr's so they assume he's good with 12 of them. He could hit 30 this season, and what good is it if he was on base at a .280 clip in the leadoff spot?

kittle42
07-08-2007, 09:22 PM
Luis Terrero is a 5-tool player. I don't like Young, especially where they have him now, leadoff. People just love Hr's so they assume he's good with 12 of them. He could hit 30 this season, and what good is it if he was on base at a .280 clip in the leadoff spot?

But....but....tools! :cool:

rdivaldi
07-08-2007, 09:26 PM
Luis Terrero is a 5-tool player. I don't like Young, especially where they have him now, leadoff. People just love Hr's so they assume he's good with 12 of them. He could hit 30 this season, and what good is it if he was on base at a .280 clip in the leadoff spot?

But Young has also shown an ability to draw walks in his career as well. He never had gaudy numbers in the minors, but he was still always in the respectable .370 range. He's obviously struggling a bit in his first full year in the majors, but he's only 23. It's not just about the home runs, it's his ability to hit doubles, play excellent defense, show a pretty decent arm and steal bases.

I was actually pretty okay with the signing because I think Javy is a much better pitcher than what others would have you believe, but that doesn't change my opinion of Young. He could be 30/30 very soon.

jabrch
07-08-2007, 11:56 PM
I usually side with you jabrch, but Young is oozing with talent and could easily end up being a 5 tool player. Don't forget that he progressed through our system very quickly and was playing against guys with much more experience than him.

But anyway Javy deserves some major props for his performances this year. Unlike last year I have a lot of confidence when he toes the bump.

I'm waiting to see him hit at some level before calling him a 5 tool player. At Birmingham and Tuscon (both hitters parks, right? Correct me if I am wrong on that) he hit .277 and .276. That doesn't bode well in the future.

I know the kid is a great athlete. But I vehemently disagree that he is a 5 tool player if one of those tools is hitting for average.

I respect your opinion a great deal. Do you honestly think he should be called a 5 tool player when his best seasons of hitting for average were .277 and .276 in AAA and AA?

rdivaldi
07-09-2007, 12:13 AM
I'm waiting to see him hit at some level before calling him a 5 tool player. At Birmingham and Tuscon (both hitters parks, right? Correct me if I am wrong on that) he hit .277 and .276. That doesn't bode well in the future.

I know the kid is a great athlete. But I vehemently disagree that he is a 5 tool player if one of those tools is hitting for average.

I respect your opinion a great deal. Do you honestly think he should be called a 5 tool player when his best seasons of hitting for average were .277 and .276 in AAA and AA?

Regions is a pitchers park actually with quite spacious dimensions. But as we all know, Hi Corbett Field is a hitters haven. I'm not sure if it plays a little more fairly during the Summer, but I've seen enough fly balls go out of the ballpark during the spring.

I do see your point about Chris in terms of hitting for average, he is more of a slugger than contact hitter. But I've always figured with his speed he would be able to leg out quite a few grounders thus giving him a better chance for hits. I guess it will remain to be seen, scouting is a very inexact science.

RowanDye
07-09-2007, 12:14 AM
Quality starts:
Garland: 11
Vazquez: 8

Jose Contreras: 9

So please, everyone STFUP about Jose's trade value!!

jabrch
07-09-2007, 12:17 AM
Regions is a pitchers park actually with quite spacious dimensions. But as we all know, Hi Corbett Field is a hitters haven. I'm not sure if it plays a little more fairly during the Summer, but I've seen enough fly balls go out of the ballpark during the spring.

I do see your point about Chris in terms of hitting for average, he is more of a slugger than contact hitter. But I've always figured with his speed he would be able to leg out quite a few grounders thus giving him a better chance for hits. I guess it will remain to be seen, scouting is a very inexact science.

Ok - thanks RD. Young has talent - no doubt. But in my eyes, a 5 tool player has to hit at least .285 at the major league level. Young never did it in the minors. Doesn't mean he won't - but he hasn't yet.

rdivaldi
07-09-2007, 12:20 AM
Jose Contreras: 9

So please, everyone STFUP about Jose's trade value!!

I don't agree with that, Contreras has quite a bit working against him.

1) A big loss in velocity
2) A bloated ERA, WHIP and BAA
3) A game log that has him not lasting past the 7th inning in a game since May 10th and only 3 quality starts since then.

They showed Minaya and KW talking quite a bit during the futures game tonight, but I can't believe that anyone is interested in Jose all that much right now.

rdivaldi
07-09-2007, 12:21 AM
Ok - thanks RD. Young has talent - no doubt. But in my eyes, a 5 tool player has to hit at least .285 at the major league level. Young never did it in the minors. Doesn't mean he won't - but he hasn't yet.

Fair enough...

jabrch
07-09-2007, 12:25 AM
They showed Minaya and KW talking quite a bit during the futures game tonight, but I can't believe that anyone is interested in Jose all that much right now.

Well - NYM isn't really interested in Milledge much anymore - he's third on their organizational prospect list in OF. It wouldn't surprise me if they take a shot at Jose if all he costs is Milledge. There's no way we get a sniff of Martinez or Gomez for him.

RowanDye
07-09-2007, 12:26 AM
But Young has also shown an ability to draw walks in his career as well. He never had gaudy numbers in the minors, but he was still always in the respectable .370 range. He's obviously struggling a bit in his first full year in the majors, but he's only 23. It's not just about the home runs, it's his ability to hit doubles, play excellent defense, show a pretty decent arm and steal bases.

I was actually pretty okay with the signing because I think Javy is a much better pitcher than what others would have you believe, but that doesn't change my opinion of Young. He could be 30/30 very soon.

Not sure where you stand on Brian Anderson, but Chris Young's numbers look very similar to Anderson's last year (when he was only 23). Except of course that Young is on pace to get close to 600 ABs.

Brian Anderson

2006 CWS 134 365 46 82 23 1 8 33 30 90 4 7 .225 .290 .359 .649

Chris B. Young

2007 ARI 76 283 37 66 15 1 12 30 15 54 9 0 .233 .278 .420 .698

jabrch
07-09-2007, 12:30 AM
Not sure where you stand on Brian Anderson, but Chris Young's numbers look very similar to Anderson's last year (when he was only 23). Except of course that Young is on pace to get close to 600 ABs.

Brian Anderson

2006 CWS 134 365 46 82 23 1 8 33 30 90 4 7 .225 .290 .359 .649

Chris B. Young

2007 ARI 76 283 37 66 15 1 12 30 15 54 9 0 .233 .278 .420 .698

I think the fact that we had both of them, and Sweeney was why ONE of them had to go. Young was the one we were able to convert into a middle of the rotation (at worst) guy.

I'm still holding out hope that someday BA gets he stuff together and gets another shot here. I did enjoy watching him play CF a great deal regardless of how poorly he hit.

rdivaldi
07-09-2007, 12:48 AM
Not sure where you stand on Brian Anderson

I do not like Anderson at the dish, never have. I think he looks like a deer in the headlights and that goofy swing off his front foot makes me ill. I've ruffled some serious feathers over the past 3 years around here because of of my consistent posts deriding his ability.

One thing from those numbers I will selectively look at are the K's and OPS. BA whiffs an attrocious amount of times for a supposed contact hitter (1 per 4.1) while Young is almost acceptable for a slugger (1 per 5.2). A 50 pt difference in OPS is also quite a bit and I expect Young to be closer to 750 by the end of the year.

RowanDye
07-09-2007, 01:00 AM
I don't agree with that, Contreras has quite a bit working against him.

1) A big loss in velocity
2) A bloated ERA, WHIP and BAA
3) A game log that has him not lasting past the 7th inning in a game since May 10th and only 3 quality starts since then.

They showed Minaya and KW talking quite a bit during the futures game tonight, but I can't believe that anyone is interested in Jose all that much right now.

OK, you may be right about #1. If Jose can prove that he's not hurt though, I think he has value.

As for #2, unfortunately he has had some really bad outings this year. He still has more quality starts than Vazquez and only 1 win less than anyone else on our team. As with everyone else on the team he hasn't had much run support.

He's going through a rough stretch, but was dominate not too long ago.
It's funny that you mention May 10th, because that was a COMPLETE GAME SHUTOUT against the Twinkies.

To say he hasn't lasted past the 7th since then doesn't mean much to me, he's went into the 6th or 7th in 7 out of 10 starts since then. He's getting older and having a bad stretch, doesn't mean he's worthless!

Obviously his age is a concern, but he comes relatively cheap and is not a rental player. He's fearless and has won in the playoffs. Reuniting him with El Duque could reinvigorate him. Having said all that I don't wan't to give him up for pennies on the dollar. He could end up winning a lot of games for us as a 3rd or 4th starter next year, and I don't want to trade low on him. If all we can get is B+ prospect, no thanks.

rdivaldi
07-09-2007, 01:05 AM
Obviously his age is a concern, but he comes relatively cheap and is not a rental player. He's fearless and has won in the playoffs. Reuniting him with El Duque could reinvigorate him. Having said all that I don't wan't to give him up for pennies on the dollar. He could end up winning a lot of games for us as a 3rd or 4th starter next year, and I don't want to trade low on him. If all we can get is B+ prospect, no thanks.

His supposed age is a huge strike against him, but you're right about his relatively cheap salary.

I think right now would be a very inopportune time to trade him, his June and his one start in July have been very poor. Maybe if he can run off 2 or 3 good starts in a row...

RowanDye
07-09-2007, 01:07 AM
I do not like Anderson at the dish, never have. I think he looks like a deer in the headlights and that goofy swing off his front foot makes me ill. I've ruffled some serious feathers over the past 3 years around here because of of my consistent posts deriding his ability.

One thing from those numbers I will selectively look at are the K's and OPS. BA whiffs an attrocious amount of times for a supposed contact hitter (1 per 4.1) while Young is almost acceptable for a slugger (1 per 5.2). A 50 pt difference in OPS is also quite a bit and I expect Young to be closer to 750 by the end of the year.

Solid points, well taken. I just think it's interesting to compare the numbers when some people are so down on BA's career so far, yet so sure that we gave a hall-of-famer in Young. I realize we're talking about two completely different teams in the '06 Sox and '07 Diamondbacks, but it also interests me to see that Young will far surpass Anderson in ABs with similar #'s. Just saying...

rdivaldi
07-09-2007, 01:15 AM
Solid points, well taken. I just think it's interesting to compare the numbers when some people are so down on BA's career so far, yet so sure that we gave a hall-of-famer in Young. I realize we're talking about two completely different teams in the '06 Sox and '07 Diamondbacks, but it also interests me to see that Young will far surpass Anderson in ABs with similar #'s. Just saying...

I'm really going a lot on what I've seen as well, I've been following these guys very closely since they were drafted (as well as Sweeney). But I know what you're talking about, when we trade players people tend to overestimate their skills, I'm guilty of doing that a couple of times over the years.

RowanDye
07-09-2007, 01:22 AM
I'm really going a lot on what I've seen as well, I've been following these guys very closely since they were drafted (as well as Sweeney). But I know what you're talking about, when we trade players people tend to overestimate their skills, I'm guilty of doing that a couple of times over the years.

Well barring a trade or a bunch of FA signings it would seem that at least one of our outfield prospects is going to have to step up next year (I know it has seemed like that for the past 2 years as well...)

You already said you don't like Anderson, so what about Sweeney in RF/LF next year?

rdivaldi
07-09-2007, 01:28 AM
Well barring a trade or a bunch of FA signings it would seem that at least one of our outfield prospects is going to have to step up next year (I know it has seemed like that for the past 2 years as well...)

You already said you don't like Anderson, so what about Sweeney in RF/LF next year?

Ryan Sweeney has been my favorite prospect in the White Sox farm system since his first ST. I was kind of hoping that he would stick this year, but it didn't happen and he's kinda mediocre in AAA this year. Eventually I think he's going to be a great hitter and I like his atheticism and arm in the outfield. In '05 I said Anderson was the most ML ready, Young had the highest ceiling and Sweeney was going to have the best career. I'll stick to that statement in '07.

Eventually we'll have to find out about Sweeney, if it happens to be next year, so be it. I remember people being unsure of Magglio being stuck out in RF full time and that worked out rather well.

lostfan
07-09-2007, 07:59 AM
Ryan Sweeney has been my favorite prospect in the White Sox farm system since his first ST. I was kind of hoping that he would stick this year, but it didn't happen and he's kinda mediocre in AAA this year. Eventually I think he's going to be a great hitter and I like his atheticism and arm in the outfield. In '05 I said Anderson was the most ML ready, Young had the highest ceiling and Sweeney was going to have the best career. I'll stick to that statement in '07.

Eventually we'll have to find out about Sweeney, if it happens to be next year, so be it. I remember people being unsure of Magglio being stuck out in RF full time and that worked out rather well.
He's not been that bad, I mean his average is .285 with an OPS of .759. Nothing really to rave about but nothing that bad either (I'd like to see his OPS at or over .800). But I think he's about to be like Anderson in that he'll have nothing left to prove at AAA.

rdivaldi
07-09-2007, 10:23 AM
He's not been that bad, I mean his average is .285 with an OPS of .759. Nothing really to rave about but nothing that bad either (I'd like to see his OPS at or over .800). But I think he's about to be like Anderson in that he'll have nothing left to prove at AAA.

Yeah pretty much. I was hoping to see his batting average in the low 300s, but he still has time for that. The reason I used the word "mediocre" is because I have much higher hopes than other Sox prospects.

itsnotrequired
07-09-2007, 10:40 AM
Damn, I just looked up Javy's stats over the last 4 games:

3-0 (1 ND), 32 IP, 6 ER (1.69 ERA), 3 BB, 33 K, opponents held to a .205 AVE

Those numbers work out to an 11 K-to-BB ratio.

:mg:

lostfan
07-09-2007, 10:51 AM
Yeah pretty much. I was hoping to see his batting average in the low 300s, but he still has time for that. The reason I used the word "mediocre" is because I have much higher hopes than other Sox prospects.
I guess that's fair, judging him by a higher set of standards considering everyone's starting to learn his name, not just Sox fans. It's true though, his numbers so far have been good but not great but he's still young, what's he like 22? I think he does have the patience and plate approach to be a .300 hitter, the contact ability is there as long as he doesn't just start striking out a lot for some mysterious reason.

Plus, I think he's close enough to succeeding at the MLB level to justify a permanent call-up. Although some extra time down at AAA probably won't hurt.

Bobby Jenks
07-09-2007, 11:13 AM
Ok - thanks RD. Young has talent - no doubt. But in my eyes, a 5 tool player has to hit at least .285 at the major league level. Young never did it in the minors. Doesn't mean he won't - but he hasn't yet.


Young reminds me a lot of Torri Hunter,or even Gary matthews to a certain degree. It will take him some time to put it all together,but i have no doubt he's a 5 tool player

Dan Mega
07-09-2007, 11:26 AM
Damn, I just looked up Javy's stats over the last 4 games:

3-0 (1 ND), 32 IP, 6 ER (1.69 ERA), 3 BB, 33 K, opponents held to a .205 AVE

Those numbers work out to an 11 K-to-BB ratio.

:mg:

He looked great yesterday didn't he? When he got into a few jams, he was still going hard and inside on guys. Hell he was doing the same thing in the 9th.

These are the kinds of numbers that Javy has the ability to put up with the stuff he has. I hope that he has finally put it all together.

PatK
07-09-2007, 11:47 AM
Damn, I just looked up Javy's stats over the last 4 games:

3-0 (1 ND), 32 IP, 6 ER (1.69 ERA), 3 BB, 33 K, opponents held to a .205 AVE

Those numbers work out to an 11 K-to-BB ratio.

:mg:

They also mentioned on the radio that since last year's All Star break, the only pitcher that has a lower opponent's BA is Johan Santana.

But he sucks, we need to trade him.

itsnotrequired
07-09-2007, 11:52 AM
They also mentioned on the radio that since last year's All Star break, the only pitcher that has a lower opponent's BA is Johan Santana.

But he sucks, we need to trade him.

:tealpolice:

lostfan
07-09-2007, 12:07 PM
Before this year, and before I joined this site obviously, I'd been saying elsewhere "Don't laugh at me, but Javier Vazquez will be a major contributor to the success of the rotation, he has some nasty stuff and has the potential to be dominant. If he turns a corner, look out."

Now, looking at his career numbers and seeing that he's had these kinds of highs before makes me wonder if he'll stay throwing like this.

balke
07-09-2007, 12:09 PM
I just hope whatever he's got going on now he can bring next season. This season is pretty much a lost cause at the moment. The Sox are fighting for 4th place with KC. Give these #'s next season when there's a bullpen.

rdivaldi
07-09-2007, 01:51 PM
I guess that's fair, judging him by a higher set of standards considering everyone's starting to learn his name, not just Sox fans. It's true though, his numbers so far have been good but not great but he's still young, what's he like 22? I think he does have the patience and plate approach to be a .300 hitter, the contact ability is there as long as he doesn't just start striking out a lot for some mysterious reason.

I've always been very impressed with Ryan's knowledge of the strikezone. He has excellent K/BB numbers in the minors. He does need to learn how to walk a bit more, but I won't worry about that now.

lostfan
07-09-2007, 01:58 PM
I've always been very impressed with Ryan's knowledge of the strikezone. He has excellent K/BB numbers in the minors. He does need to learn how to walk a bit more, but I won't worry about that now.
At-bats are really the only way for him to work that out.

jabrch
07-09-2007, 02:24 PM
At-bats are really the only way for him to work that out.

If he hits better, he will eventually walk more also.

Obviously, in order to walk you need 4 bad pitches thrown to you. If you are hitting well, the odds of seeing bad pitches goes up.

Tragg
07-09-2007, 04:59 PM
I don't agree with that, Contreras has quite a bit working against him.

1) A big loss in velocity
2) A bloated ERA, WHIP and BAA
3) A game log that has him not lasting past the 7th inning in a game since May 10th and only 3 quality starts since then.

4)his contract; that's the biggest problem I think.

If he hits better, he will eventually walk more also.

Obviously, in order to walk you need 4 bad pitches thrown to you. If you are hitting well, the odds of seeing bad pitches goes up.

When it happens (seeing 4 bad pitches) you need to take advantage of it...most hitters, don't, and swing at the bad ones. Patience is as much waiting for a pitch you can hit. And when you wait for pitches you can it, walks will happen.

jabrch
07-09-2007, 05:08 PM
When it happens (seeing 4 bad pitches) you need to take advantage of it...most hitters, don't, and swing at the bad ones.
Patience is as much waiting for a pitch you can hit, not swinging at a pitch just because it's a strike, and when you get really good, fouling off unhittable strikes as best you can, until he makes a mistake.
And when you wait for pitches you can it, walks will happen.


I don't believe that being a passive hitter is the best way to go. I don't suggest swinging at bad pitches, but I don't buy into this philosophy of nitpicking with the strike zone. You get three strikes - and it doesn't matter if they are where you like them or not. You better swing at them aggressively when they come. Defensive swings have a low % of chance of resulting good.

lostfan
07-09-2007, 06:04 PM
I don't believe that being a passive hitter is the best way to go. I don't suggest swinging at bad pitches, but I don't buy into this philosophy of nitpicking with the strike zone. You get three strikes - and it doesn't matter if they are where you like them or not. You better swing at them aggressively when they come. Defensive swings have a low % of chance of resulting good.
Joe Crede would beg to differ. You have to know how to defensively swing if you want to work a count and keep your strikeout total down.

jabrch
07-09-2007, 06:23 PM
Joe Crede would beg to differ. You have to know how to defensively swing if you want to work a count and keep your strikeout total down.

There's a difference between protecting the plate when you have two strikes and what the Tragg talked about.

Be aggressive in the zone - that's what I hear good hitters preaching. The freaking Oakland As crappy offensive philosophy of fouling off pitches until you can find 4 balls is terrible for a major league team. It doesn't work when it is most important - against good pitching. Get in the box, dig in, and hit. If your opponent beats you, fine. But this game of trying to wait until he makes mistakes, and passing up opportunities to be aggressive, hoping for opportunities to do nothing and get a free base is just flat out wrong. Teams that play that sort of ball will constantly struggle to win post season serieses when they don't face pitchers who are likely to walk you so much.

And as far as Joe goes, how's his approach doing for him? .259/.305/.446 Great

lostfan
07-09-2007, 06:46 PM
There's a difference between protecting the plate when you have two strikes and what the Tragg talked about.

Be aggressive in the zone - that's what I hear good hitters preaching. The freaking Oakland As crappy offensive philosophy of fouling off pitches until you can find 4 balls is terrible for a major league team. It doesn't work when it is most important - against good pitching. Get in the box, dig in, and hit. If your opponent beats you, fine. But this game of trying to wait until he makes mistakes, and passing up opportunities to be aggressive, hoping for opportunities to do nothing and get a free base is just flat out wrong. Teams that play that sort of ball will constantly struggle to win post season serieses when they don't face pitchers who are likely to walk you so much.

And as far as Joe goes, how's his approach doing for him? .259/.305/.446 Great
Obviously, I was talking about the Joe Crede of last year, not the guy before that who was taking forever to develop as a hitter.

But if you're talking strictly about being a passive hitter, then yeah. It works against average pitchers well enough, but if you can't recognize a strike that you should swing at you'll be nothing against a pitcher with good command. But what I was getting at is you have to be able to work a count and force a pitcher to beat you.

I should note this is a whole lot harder than it sounds. You can either do it or you can't.