PDA

View Full Version : wazquez


misty60481
10-23-2007, 09:26 AM
We have to remember that Javy has been nothing more than a .500 pitcher his whole career. He has had other good years but hasnt been consistently a better that average pitcher. I hope he can pick up this year like he left off last year, but before we talk about trading Garland we better be sure.

salty99
10-23-2007, 09:27 AM
who is this wazquez that you speak of?

oeo
10-23-2007, 09:29 AM
We have to remember that Javy has been nothing more than a .500 pitcher his whole career. He has had other good years but hasnt been consistently a better that average pitcher. I hope he can pick up this year like he left off last year, but before we talk about trading Garland we better be sure.

And when has Garland done this? :?:

Vazquez > Garland, and he's cheaper...what a deal!

TommyJohn
10-23-2007, 09:36 AM
who is this wazquez that you speak of?

The Transylvanian version of Javy Vazquez.

spiffie
10-23-2007, 09:44 AM
And when has Garland done this? :?:

Vazquez > Garland, and he's cheaper...what a deal!
ERA 2004-2007 (Javy's post Expos timeframe)

Garland - 4.28
Vazquez - 4.46

Also, Javy turns 32 during this season, Garland turns 29 right at the end of the season.

I agree that Javy, at his best, is better than Garland at his best. But for the last 4 years Vazquez has been a wildly inconsistent pitcher year to year, and has yet to show the ability to be a consistent part of a pennant chasing team. Personally, I'd take the younger pitcher who might not have quite as high a ceiling, but generally has a higher floor.

Harry Potter
10-23-2007, 09:46 AM
"That wascal, Wazquez"

http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Elmer.gif

oeo
10-23-2007, 09:54 AM
ERA 2004-2007 (Javy's post Expos timeframe)

Garland - 4.28
Vazquez - 4.46

Also, Javy turns 32 during this season, Garland turns 29 right at the end of the season.

I agree that Javy, at his best, is better than Garland at his best. But for the last 4 years Vazquez has been a wildly inconsistent pitcher year to year, and has yet to show the ability to be a consistent part of a pennant chasing team. Personally, I'd take the younger pitcher who might not have quite as high a ceiling, but generally has a higher floor.

-Garland has also been wildly inconsistent...I'm not getting your point here. And Vazquez also spent those 4 years on 3 different teams. With different teammates, a different city (both extremes from NY to Phoenix), different coaches and philosophies, etc.
-Garland's career year that happened to be the year we won it all, means that he can do it again? He's never come close to those numbers, and probably never will again.
-OTOH, Vazquez has had two seasons like his 2007, one of them being even better.
-Garland is a free agent next year, and will demand more than Javy's contract.

If I'm going to take a 'wildly' inconsistent pitcher (which they both have been...don't give Garland any slack), I'll take Vazquez. When he's on, he can be an ace, and he's going to come at a smaller price tag.

All this can be moot if Garland decides to sign a contract closer to Vazquez's, rather than Buehrle's, but for some reason I don't see that.

DumpJerry
10-23-2007, 10:38 AM
-Garland's career year that happened to be the year we won it all, means that he can do it again? He's never come close to those numbers, and probably never will again.
Sigh.
Garland 2005: 18-10 (W-L), 221 Innings, 212 hits, 26 HR, 47 BB, 115 K's, 3.50 ERA
Garland 2006: 18-7, 211.3, 247, 26, 112, 4.51 ERA.

Except for the ERA, looks really close to me. You just don't like Garland.

soltrain21
10-23-2007, 10:46 AM
I thought Wazquez was a witty pun on his name - like he "was" a bad pitcher but now he has turned the corner for us. Turns out it was just a typo. Sigh.

And how do we make sure Javier is going to stay consistent? It's impossible to predict the future. What if we don't trade Garland and he loses 20 games? We. don't. know.

Sargeant79
10-23-2007, 10:59 AM
The main issue is which pitcher is going to give you the most bang for your buck? It's hard to make a solid argument for either one being better than the other. They have similar talent levels. Garland tends to get more wins but Vazquez's best is probably a little better than Garland's. They have both been inconsistent. Vazquez is a couple years older. But Javy is under contract for 3 more years at a comparatively reasonable price for a solid mid-rotation starter. Garland will probably be asking for at least 5 years and $75 million as a free agent next year. Someone will pay that, and quite possibly more.

Assuming keeping both is out of the long-term budget, you move the guy in his walk year who will likely be priced out of the White Sox range at a time when you could probably get a very nice return for him. It's almost a no-brainer.

IlliniSox4Life
10-23-2007, 01:09 PM
Everybody! We HAVE to remember!

WhiteSox5187
10-23-2007, 02:58 PM
Do we even know what Garland is asking for in a contract? Presumably he will be looking for Buerhle type money (I wouldn't mind giving him a three year deal for that kind dough) but have there been any discussions one way or the other? I understand the logic in trading him if we think we have no shot of keeping him, but I think we oughta at least explore the possibility of a contract extension.

oeo
10-23-2007, 03:25 PM
Sigh.
Garland 2005: 18-10 (W-L), 221 Innings, 212 hits, 26 HR, 47 BB, 115 K's, 3.50 ERA
Garland 2006: 18-7, 211.3, 247, 26, 112, 4.51 ERA.

Except for the ERA, looks really close to me. You just don't like Garland.

Yeah, the ERA is a full point higher...which is not the same at all. There's a huge difference between those two years.

And I don't dislike Garland. I just don't think he's worth the money he will command. I've said this a billion times now.

He's not as good as Buehrle, and if he commands a 4+ year contract around the amount of Buehrle's, it's a rip off. Garland is probably the most overrated guy by Sox fans on this team. He's an average pitcher, and that's not worthy of top-of-the-rotation money.

Hendu
10-23-2007, 04:30 PM
Yeah, the ERA is a full point higher...which is not the same at all. There's a huge difference between those two years.

And I don't dislike Garland. I just don't think he's worth the money he will command. I've said this a billion times now.

He's not as good as Buehrle, and if he commands a 4+ year contract around the amount of Buehrle's, it's a rip off. Garland is probably the most overrated guy by Sox fans on this team. He's an average pitcher, and that's not worthy of top-of-the-rotation money.

Garland is a durable innings eater. Not a top-of-the-rotation guy, but a solid #2 or #3.

Unfortunately, the definition if top-of-the-rotation money has changed drastically over the past few years...and the mediocre free agent pitching market means those prices are only going to go up.

Foulke You
10-23-2007, 04:48 PM
who is this wazquez that you speak of?
http://dreamers.com/menhir/strek/person/chekov2.jpg

"I find nutting wrong wit the way his last name was pronounced"

misty60481
10-23-2007, 05:22 PM
Sorry about the "W", typing mistake, I think everybody automatically assumes that Javy is going to have another year like last year. His career doesnt seem to follow that direction, I want him on the team but in the long run I think Garland is more valuable. With JG you pretty much know what your getting, if he had any luck or hitting this year he could have won at least 3 or 4 more games. What if Javy falls back into his old form of 5 or 6 innings then blows up, we dont know what were getting from Contreras, Danks, Floyd so I sure wouldnt let Garland go.

Foulke You
10-23-2007, 05:41 PM
Sorry about the "W", typing mistake, I think everybody automatically assumes that Javy is going to have another year like last year. His career doesnt seem to follow that direction, I want him on the team but in the long run I think Garland is more valuable. With JG you pretty much know what your getting, if he had any luck or hitting this year he could have won at least 3 or 4 more games. What if Javy falls back into his old form of 5 or 6 innings then blows up, we dont know what were getting from Contreras, Danks, Floyd so I sure wouldnt let Garland go.
Well, for better or worse I think you're going to have to get used to the idea of Javy being on the White Sox. He is locked up with a long term contract at a fair price for today's market. He eats a lot of innings, has great stuff, and you can pretty much pencil him in for at least 12-15 wins. It's a shame that his 2007 season was marred by a lack of run support. If Javy would have pitched like that in 2006, he would have won 18-21 games for us. I think the Sox have much more to worry about in '08 than Javier Vazquez. He was one of the few things that went right in '07 so perhaps he is finally over that whole "6th inning meltdown" phase he went thru in '06.

I am definitely in agreement with you about Jon Garland though. I don't want 2 question marks in our rotation from the group of Floyd/Broadway/Danks/Gio. If we trade Garland, we'll be back to where we were in 2002-2004 which was 3 solid starters and nothing but question marks at the back end of the rotation. It was that flaw that cost us some division titles to Minnesota. In a perfect world, we keep both Vazquez AND Garland.

voodoochile
10-23-2007, 05:42 PM
Sorry about the "W", typing mistake, I think everybody automatically assumes that Javy is going to have another year like last year. His career doesnt seem to follow that direction, I want him on the team but in the long run I think Garland is more valuable. With JG you pretty much know what your getting, if he had any luck or hitting this year he could have won at least 3 or 4 more games. What if Javy falls back into his old form of 5 or 6 innings then blows up, we dont know what were getting from Contreras, Danks, Floyd so I sure wouldnt let Garland go.

You should be able to fix the title of the thread by editing the title of your first post, but you will need to click "go advanced" after clicking the edit button to do so.

KyWhiSoxFan
10-23-2007, 05:49 PM
I think Javy has finally learned how to pitch. At least I hope that is the case. He's had great stuff his whole career but seemed to be enthralled with the strikeout, afraid of contact. If he continues to pitch like he did in 2007, he would be the ace of the staff.

I agree with both sides of the aisle about Garland--trade him and keep him. Trade him if the Sox can get back a PROVEN starting pitcher in return. Keep him if they can't. Garland's reliable, not an ace, but if the Sox can upgrade, then do it.

AnkleSox
10-23-2007, 05:50 PM
Sigh.
Garland 2005: 18-10 (W-L), 221 Innings, 212 hits, 26 HR, 47 BB, 115 K's, 3.50 ERA
Garland 2006: 18-7, 211.3, 247, 26, 112, 4.51 ERA.

Except for the ERA, looks really close to me. You just don't like Garland.

I like both pitchers, but in 2005 he gave up fewer hits in more innings. In '05 he gave up about .95 hits an inning, whereas in 06 it was 1.17. That's a pretty big difference in my opinion.

slavko
10-23-2007, 06:08 PM
That settles it. Trade Garland and Vazquez to dump their salaries, use the money to shore up all the other areas that need help and sign a couple of "average pitchers" to take their place for $5M each. Maybe the Cubs will make Jason Marquis available and eat some of his salary.

JB98
10-23-2007, 09:44 PM
IMO, we need BOTH Garland AND Vazquez on the team, healthy and pitching well if we want to win in 2008.

guillen4life13
10-24-2007, 08:35 AM
IMO, we need BOTH Garland AND Vazquez on the team, healthy and pitching well if we want to win in 2008.

I really don't think that even KW will be able to make such drastic changes to this team to make it a legitimate WS contender by April.

Let 2008 be the year for a few guys to develop and get used to the majors (Danks, Owens, Richar, and one of the other SP prospects). Thome plays out his contract (or the Sox trade him this offseason) and you use the money saved to either re-sign Garland, sign (or re-sign, if he's landed) Figgins, and/or sign another SP.

Vazquez is staying in Chicago, if not for the performance, then for the price. I would kiss Garland goodbye and hope there's some team out there willing to take a chance on Contreras

nccwsfan
10-24-2007, 12:28 PM
They're both valuable to the pitching staff and the CWS would be best served to keep them both around for 2008, hopefully longer. My gut keeps telling me that Garland will be gone by next offseason, whether it's FA or trade. IMO Vazquez was the team's most valuable starting pitcher in 2007, and now that he's signed for another 3 seasons why send him elsewhere? Let's see if he can repeat his performance in 2008.

Gregory Pratt
10-24-2007, 05:45 PM
Yeah, the ERA is a full point higher...which is not the same at all. There's a huge difference between those two years.

And I don't dislike Garland. I just don't think he's worth the money he will command. I've said this a billion times now.

He's not as good as Buehrle, and if he commands a 4+ year contract around the amount of Buehrle's, it's a rip off. Garland is probably the most overrated guy by Sox fans on this team. He's an average pitcher, and that's not worthy of top-of-the-rotation money.

Yeah, who knew that a full run difference and a ton more hits allowed were something to scoff at? But hey...he won an equal amount of games!

whitesoxfan1986
10-25-2007, 12:07 AM
I really don't think that even KW will be able to make such drastic changes to this team to make it a legitimate WS contender by April.

Let 2008 be the year for a few guys to develop and get used to the majors (Danks, Owens, Richar, and one of the other SP prospects). Thome plays out his contract (or the Sox trade him this offseason) and you use the money saved to either re-sign Garland, sign (or re-sign, if he's landed) Figgins, and/or sign another SP.

Vazquez is staying in Chicago, if not for the performance, then for the price. I would kiss Garland goodbye and hope there's some team out there willing to take a chance on Contreras
Yeah, I agree. There's no way we're going to win anything next year. This team is so far away from amounting to anything it makes me sick. I'm all for doing whatever it takes to get young talent on the south side. If it means trading Paulie, trade Paulie, if it means trading Javy, trade Javy, If it means trading Buehrle, do that too. Mark is my favorite player on the team, but I am a Sox fan first, and if it makes the Sox a better team in the long run to trade him, then by all means go through with it. Mark wants to stay here though, so Vazquez is probably our best trading chip. If you can get a boatload of talent then trade him. We're not going anywhere, so Garland and Javy can go, and I don't mind, just as long as we don't give them away. IMO Re-signing Buehrle and Dye were two of the worst things this franchise could have done long term. I don't see the Sox competing for the division, let alone a championship, until 2011 at the earliest. We have at least 3 more years of ****ty baseball ahead of us, so what is the point of having a 29 and 32 year old really good pitcher on the team making a combined $25 million. It's like the Marlins having Dontrelle Willis, though he is a bit younger than Mark and Javy. They're both better off for themselves and the Sox on different teams. IMO we need to go Marlins after 2004.

JB98
10-25-2007, 01:08 AM
Yeah, I agree. There's no way we're going to win anything next year. This team is so far away from amounting to anything it makes me sick. I'm all for doing whatever it takes to get young talent on the south side. If it means trading Paulie, trade Paulie, if it means trading Javy, trade Javy, If it means trading Buehrle, do that too. Mark is my favorite player on the team, but I am a Sox fan first, and if it makes the Sox a better team in the long run to trade him, then by all means go through with it. Mark wants to stay here though, so Vazquez is probably our best trading chip. If you can get a boatload of talent then trade him. We're not going anywhere, so Garland and Javy can go, and I don't mind, just as long as we don't give them away. IMO Re-signing Buehrle and Dye were two of the worst things this franchise could have done long term. I don't see the Sox competing for the division, let alone a championship, until 2011 at the earliest. We have at least 3 more years of ****ty baseball ahead of us, so what is the point of having a 29 and 32 year old really good pitcher on the team making a combined $25 million. It's like the Marlins having Dontrelle Willis, though he is a bit younger than Mark and Javy. They're both better off for themselves and the Sox on different teams. IMO we need to go Marlins after 2004.

I'd like to see the makeup of next year's roster before I declare that we have no chance of winning in 2008. Hell, going into 2005, I thought we had no prayer. I also thought we could win in 2007. I was very wrong on both counts.

I can't believe you think we have at least three more years of ****ty baseball ahead of us. I realize we just had our worst season in 18 years, but for God's sake, pull yourself together. We've got problems, but I'm not resigned to the fate of sucking for the next five years by any means.

Let's see what KW can do this offseason before we start *****ing and crying.

SBSoxFan
10-25-2007, 09:49 AM
I'd like to see the makeup of next year's roster before I declare that we have no chance of winning in 2008. Hell, going into 2005, I thought we had no prayer. I also thought we could win in 2007. I was very wrong on both counts.

I can't believe you think we have at least three more years of ****ty baseball ahead of us. I realize we just had our worst season in 18 years, but for God's sake, pull yourself together. We've got problems, but I'm not resigned to the fate of sucking for the next five years by any means.

Let's see what KW can do this offseason before we start *****ing and crying.

Yes, I agree. And we still won't be able to judge an offseason until much further down the road. Invariably, a team or two that made no preseason waves come from nowhere to make a playoff run. All this hand wringing about the 2008 season in October 2007 is absurd. However, I guess it wouldn't be WSI without it!

JB98
10-25-2007, 12:45 PM
Yes, I agree. And we still won't be able to judge an offseason until much further down the road. Invariably, a team or two that made no preseason waves come from nowhere to make a playoff run. All this hand wringing about the 2008 season in October 2007 is absurd. However, I guess it wouldn't be WSI without it!

I mean, I can understand if some want to see some high-priced veterans traded for younger talent. That would set 2008 up as a transition year for the organization. I don't agree with that line of thought, but I'll acknowledge there is some merit to that point of view.

However, it's ridiculous to come on here and assert that we are going to suck until at least 2011. Two years ago tomorrow, we reached the very top of the mountain. Now, we're down near the bottom. That proves how quickly things can turn. Things went sour for us in a hurry. They can turn back in our favor just as quickly. That's how baseball is in the modern era. Look around the league and you'll see other examples.

GoSox2K3
10-25-2007, 01:26 PM
I really don't think that even KW will be able to make such drastic changes to this team to make it a legitimate WS contender by April.


Yeah, I agree. There's no way we're going to win anything next year. This team is so far away from amounting to anything it makes me sick. ...... I don't see the Sox competing for the division, let alone a championship, until 2011 at the earliest. We have at least 3 more years of ****ty baseball ahead of us, so what is the point of having a 29 and 32 year old really good pitcher on the team making a combined $25 million.

http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/apple.media/thumb/200/200/white_flag.jpg

SBSoxFan
10-25-2007, 11:48 PM
I mean, I can understand if some want to see some high-priced veterans traded for younger talent. That would set 2008 up as a transition year for the organization. I don't agree with that line of thought, but I'll acknowledge there is some merit to that point of view.

However, it's ridiculous to come on here and assert that we are going to suck until at least 2011. Two years ago tomorrow, we reached the very top of the mountain. Now, we're down near the bottom. That proves how quickly things can turn. Things went sour for us in a hurry. They can turn back in our favor just as quickly. That's how baseball is in the modern era. Look around the league and you'll see other examples.

I agree. That's why I'm not going to fret too much. I'll just enjoy the ride. :smile:

roadrunner
10-26-2007, 04:49 PM
In general, I find all the love for Vazquez curious. He seems like the prototype pitcher that you don't want. Highly paid guy with all the stuff in the world but just can't win consistently or when it counts. It's no surprise that he has had a stint with the Yankees. His best years were with bad Expos teams and then again last year when we were bad. He didn't perform in 2006 when we needed him or for any other decent teams he's been on.

I'm not saying that he's not a decent guy to have toward the middle/bottom of the rotation but to me he's quite expendable and even more so if it means clearing needed budget space.