santo=dorf Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 The more the ball is hit in the air the better of a chance it has of going out of the park that is my point. Anything hit here i feel has a chance to go now which i am not comfortable with. He is also known for giving a good amount of homeruns. I don't know about you but i prefer ground ball pitchers rather than fly ball pitchers Where did you get those stats? Vazquez's career whip is 1.29 and his career g/f ratio is 1.18 Garland's career whip is 1.38 and his career g/f ratio is 1.30 which is terrible for a supposed sinker baller. Edit: I am not saying a pitcher with a low g/f ratio cannot succeed here but the chances are less likely imo. I got the stats from mlb.com. They didn't have Vazquez's go/ao for 1998, so I didn't take that into account. Apparently in 1998 he had a great g/f ratio that was able to make his career g/f 1.18 which is only .12 difference from Garland's. You have to think about this. Instead of giving up ground balls, Vazquez strikes out guys. This skews his career go/ao ratio which is less (only a difference of .12) than Garland's. I have shown you that Garland puts the ball in play more than Vazquez (I even used a bad year for Vazquez) and yet Garland's GO/AO is only .12 better. I believe Vazquez would be no worse than Garland at USCF, because he strikes more guys out, and has a lower WHIP than Garland. Garland's career WHIP of 1.44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I compared Garland to Vazquez because some people were against the idea of getting Vazquez because we would potentially give up Garland because Jon is also supposed to be a "groundball pitcher." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I got the stats from mlb.com. They didn't have Vazquez's go/ao for 1998, so I didn't take that into account. Apparently in 1998 he had a g/f ratio that was able to make his career g/f 1.18 which is only .12 difference from Garland's. You have to think about this. Instead of giving up ground balls, Vazquez strikes out guys. This skews his career go/ao ratio which is less (only a difference of .12) than Garland's. I have shown you that Garland puts the ball in play more than Vazquez (I even used a bad year for Vazquez) and yet Garland's GO/AO is only .12 better. I believe Vazquez would be no worse than Garland at USCF, because he strikes more guys out, and has a lower WHIP than Garland. Garland's career WHIP of 1.44 Even if he is slightly better than garland are you satisfied with him being are three? Sorry about the whip, i was looking at the wrong thing like a dumbass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted December 11, 2004 Author Share Posted December 11, 2004 Dorf, you bring up a very valid point...but that is not a fair comparison. Garland is meant to be our #5 starter...we want Vazquez to be a #3 starter for us(or so I assume). I do not mind a 1.44 WHIP and a 1.30 GO-AO ratio with few strike outs from a guy like Garland out of the #5 spot, but if he was pencilled in to be our #3, I would have a huge problem with it. I am neither for nor against a trade for Vazquez, assuming it does not cost Konerko and Garland, or that if it does, insurance is brought in to make sure Gload does not have to start all alone and that we get more then just Vazquez...if we got Vazquez and Gordon with the Yanks paying for most, if not all, of Vazquez's salary, I could quite possibly love the deal...a pen of Cotts/Adkins-Politte-Hermanson-Gordon-Marte-Shingo is, quite possibly, the best in the majors...and our rotation would be quite solid too, and with the saved money, I'd assume they would be able to afford a decent #5 starter...perhaps Paul Byrd or Wilson Alvarez for $1-2 mill, maybe even $3 for 1-2 years. We can then quite possibly upgrade both the rotation and lineup/bench come midseason in trades for players with very little moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Even if he is slightly better than garland are you satisfied with him being are three? Sorry about the whip, i was looking at the wrong thing like a dumbass I would love to have a big three of Buehrle, Garcia, and Vazquez for the next 3 years. f*** Garland. I just can't stand him anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 are you satisfied with him being are three? I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I would love to have a big three of Buehrle, Garcia, and Vazquez for the next 3 years. f*** Garland. I just can't stand him anymore. I hate garland also but i you have to admit he is better than every fifth starter and just about every fourth starter in the league. Which doesn't say much, i think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Dorf, you bring up a very valid point...but that is not a fair comparison. Garland is meant to be our #5 starter...we want Vazquez to be a #3 starter for us(or so I assume). I do not mind a 1.44 WHIP and a 1.30 GO-AO ratio with few strike outs from a guy like Garland out of the #5 spot, but if he was pencilled in to be our #3, I would have a huge problem with it. I am neither for nor against a trade for Vazquez, assuming it does not cost Konerko and Garland, or that if it does, insurance is brought in to make sure Gload does not have to start all alone and that we get more then just Vazquez...if we got Vazquez and Gordon with the Yanks paying for most, if not all, of Vazquez's salary, I could quite possibly love the deal...a pen of Cotts/Adkins-Politte-Hermanson-Gordon-Marte-Shingo is, quite possibly, the best in the majors...and our rotation would be quite solid too, and with the saved money, I'd assume they would be able to afford a decent #5 starter...perhaps Paul Byrd or Wilson Alvarez for $1-2 mill, maybe even $3 for 1-2 years. We can then quite possibly upgrade both the rotation and lineup/bench come midseason in trades for players with very little moves. I imagine that if we gave up Konerko and Garland, we would be getting more than "just" Vazquez. The Yankees could send a ton of cash our way, or maybe some other players. The cash could then be used to sign a fifth starter. I wouldn't mind Garland being the number 5, but it's a ripoff for $3.4 million. You bring up the point of wanting Vazquez to be our #3 starter, but keep in mind I used a bad year from Vazquez to point out he puts the ball in play less than Garland, and that for 3 consecutive seasons Jonny boy was given the #3 starter's spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...s_cws&fext=.jsp It was just four days ago when Williams stated without hesitation that dealings for Randy Johnson were off the table. According to Williams, it was a lack of interest on Johnson's part to waive his no-trade clause and pitch for the White Sox, more so than a South Siders' waning desire to acquire the Big Unit that caused the declaration. On Friday, Alan Nero, one of Johnson's agents, said any reports on Johnson and his possible trade desires were just that -- media reports. Nothing was official as far as Johnson being asked if he would pitch for the White Sox, according to Nero. This piece of second-hand news gave Williams a little room for thought, even though his information regarding Johnson came from a highly placed source. Even if asked, Johnson's answer would be no, said the source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted December 11, 2004 Author Share Posted December 11, 2004 I imagine that if we gave up Konerko and Garland, we would be getting more than "just" Vazquez. The Yankees could send a ton of cash our way, or maybe some other players. The cash could then be used to sign a fifth starter. I wouldn't mind Garland being the number 5, but it's a ripoff for $3.4 million. You bring up the point of wanting Vazquez to be our #3 starter, but keep in mind I used a bad year from Vazquez to point out he puts the ball in play less than Garland, and that for 3 consecutive seasons Jonny boy was given the #3 starter's spot. To trade Konerko and Garland, the Sox would not only have to receive a ton of cash, but they'd need to have another player included too...I do not see the deal happening otherwise. I also feel that if Vazquez struggled in NY this past year because of pressure, he would struggle in USCF because of his tendency to allow flyballs. Another reason for concern is that his velocity was down in the playoffs...if that is a serious problem, then he is not worth Joe Borchard in 2005, let alone Konerko and Garland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Master Buehrle Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...s_cws&fext=.jsp This whole debacle has me :headshake Randy needs to hold a press conference and finish off all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomsonmi Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Jon Garland isn't half the pitcher that Javy Wazquez is. We can debate stats all day long. Javy was better than Garland's best year in Javy's worst year. Enough said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisox05 Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Jon Garland isn't half the pitcher that Javy Wazquez is. We can debate stats all day long. Javy was better than Garland's best year in Javy's worst year. Enough said. Stop comparing them. Vazquez was very overrated in the NL. First off, the NL has weaker hitters and a pitcher that hits. Vazquez was in a literally no pressure environment. Vazquez really didn't have that great of stats outside of his K/9 stat. His ERA's were good but he really did have 1 really good year and thats it if u look at his career closely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toasty Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 This whole debacle has me :headshake Randy needs to hold a press conference and finish off all this. i like this last paragraph... perhaps there is hope for something yet: "There may be a situation that it's such an obvious upgrade that we go back and potentially add to already what we budgeted in our payroll," Williams added. "The only thing I know about [owner] Jerry Reinsdorf is he wants to win. I know that if the move makes sense and if I take it to him that he will consider it, and consider it in a legitimate and worthwhile way." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomsonmi Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Stop comparing them. Vazquez was very overrated in the NL. First off, the NL has weaker hitters and a pitcher that hits. Vazquez was in a literally no pressure environment. Vazquez really didn't have that great of stats outside of his K/9 stat. His ERA's were good but he really did have 1 really good year and thats it if u look at his career closely. No problem, since there's really no comparison. One's done the job consistently (until this year's goofiness with the Yanks), one after four years is still a prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Jon Garland isn't half the pitcher that Javy Wazquez is. We can debate stats all day long. Javy was better than Garland's best year in Javy's worst year. Enough said. You are forgetting one very important element, especially when it comes to the White Sox ... Payroll $$$$$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomsonmi Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 You are forgetting one very important element, especially when it comes to the White Sox ... Payroll $$$$$ You are absolutely right, YASNY. This will only happen because the Yanks want RJ so bad that they will literally pay Vazquez to pitch for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toasty Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I am guessing that PK is too expensive for jay's blood? since they need a 1st baseman? ... but they would have to have something we want! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 You are absolutely right, YASNY. This will only happen because the Yanks want RJ so bad that they will literally pay Vazquez to pitch for us. That remains to be seen. I just don't like the thought of giving up Garland & Konerko for a pitcher who may or may not be as effective as his past history. His rumored loss of velocity scares me, ala Billy Koch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 The Tigers met with the Brewers last night, possibly to discuss Scott Podsednik. Podsednik for Mike Maroth and a young reliever (Franklyn German or Roberto Novoa)? Detroit doesn't have the quality corner outfielder the Brewers are looking for, but Milwaukee also could use some pitching. Dec. 11 - 1:42 am et Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel From rotoworld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Stop comparing them. Vazquez was very overrated in the NL. First off, the NL has weaker hitters and a pitcher that hits. Vazquez was in a literally no pressure environment. Vazquez really didn't have that great of stats outside of his K/9 stat. His ERA's were good but he really did have 1 really good year and thats it if u look at his career closely. and despite playing through an injury or f***ed up mechanics, and in NEW YORK, Vazquez was able to put up similar or even better numbers than Garland last season. I would love to see Jon pitch in the bronx and use that "had Jeter not made that error in the third, the game would've still been 4-4" excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisox05 Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 That remains to be seen. I just don't like the thought of giving up Garland & Konerko for a pitcher who may or may not be as effective as his past history. His rumored loss of velocity scares me, ala Billy Koch. Agree, it would be a very foolish move by kenny, and the little respect i have left for kenny would vanish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 The Tigers met with the Brewers last night, possibly to discuss Scott Podsednik. Podsednik for Mike Maroth and a young reliever (Franklyn German or Roberto Novoa)? Detroit doesn't have the quality corner outfielder the Brewers are looking for, but Milwaukee also could use some pitching. Dec. 11 - 1:42 am et Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel From rotoworld. I saw that too. I hope the Tigers make that trade because Maroth pitches very well against us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toasty Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I cant see detroit dealing maroth unless they get a pitcher or 2 signed, like lowe or someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I can see the Brewers taking that deal. Detroit would get a speedy CF to cover the acreage in Comerica, but can they afford to deal the pitching? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.