Guest JimH Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Rock, Garland apparantly does not want to play here. It can't be simpler than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 One humble request: Can someone please post the groundball-flyball ratios for both Garland and Vazquez. That is something that needs a serious looking-at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 One humble request: Can someone please post the groundball-flyball ratios for both Garland and Vazquez. That is something that needs a serious looking-at. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Another aspect to this question, look at Vazquez's walk #'s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatScott82 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 07:33 PM) Not reading 19 pages, but, I gather most think Garland would be the guy to go in this alleged trade discussion and folks are arguing for or against it? Pretty fair assessment? Personally, I just can't see Williams trading Garland unless he absolutely feels he stands no chance of re-signing him after this season. That, or, perhaps he doesn't want to re-sign him after this season. As much as I like the idea of having Vazquez locked up in a Sox uniform for the next season or two, I'd hate to see Garland--who seems to be coming into his own--go. There's always FA, Kenny. my sentiments exactly. Is Vazquez that much better than any of the free agents out there after the '06 season? I don't think so. Stick with Garland and ride this season out with what we have. Worse comes to worse in 2007 our rotation will be: Buerhle, Garcia, Contreras/ Garland (KW will keep 1), McCarthy and Cotts. That is saying if KW CANT sign a free agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 01:53 PM) my sentiments exactly. Is Vazquez that much better than any of the free agents out there after the '06 season? I don't think so. Stick with Garland and ride this season out with what we have. Worse comes to worse in 2007 our rotation will be: Buerhle, Garcia, Contreras/ Garland (KW will keep 1), McCarthy and Cotts. That is saying if KW CANT sign a free agent. Free agency? Oh, no, no. I meant Frankie Avalon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatScott82 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 07:55 PM) Free agency? Oh, no, no. I meant Frankie Avalon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I don't think this deal would be considered until that Burnett deal went down. If that guy is making $55 million, Garland will ask for 60. He may not get it but if he gets a similar contract the Sox aren't going to bother. Also, by next off season how do you know the value of pitching won't be even higher? FA pitchers that are close to Garland or Vasquez might comand $11-12 million a year. This might happen because it keeps the Sox from having to make a huge offer to someone, while in this trade, KW will have some of the contract paid by other teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I think the Cheat and I are on the same page when it comes to Garland. http://southsidesox.com/story/2005/12/7/03514/0519 Unless the marketplace changes drastically, he is going to get a lot of money, and a lot of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 02:46 PM) One humble request: Can someone please post the groundball-flyball ratios for both Garland and Vazquez. That is something that needs a serious looking-at. Garland has consistently put up a G/F favorable for a pitcher in the Cell. His career average is between 1.3 and 1.4 I think. Vazquez is hard to figure out. He's had a G/F ratio as high as 1.51, and one as low as 0.83. So he's thrown as high as 60% ground balls in a season, but gone down to 45% ground balls as well. I haven't followed him nearly enough to know how his pitch selction tendancies have changed over the years, if at all. That's the only obvious reason I see as why there would be such a discrepancy. It should also be noted that Vazquez had one of the highest BABIP for all pitchers last year, which could suggest he was a tad "unlucky". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 02:46 PM) One humble request: Can someone please post the groundball-flyball ratios for both Garland and Vazquez. That is something that needs a serious looking-at. 2005 Garland 332 / 230 GB / FB - 1.44 G/F ratio - 115 K's / 47 BB's in 221.0 IP Vazquez 269 / 227 GB / FB - 1.18 G/F ratio - 192 K's / 46 BB's in 215 IP Jon is a much better Ground Ball pitcher, but Vazquez also struck out 77 more batters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Garland would be the one dealt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Rosenthal Says a package could be Garland and Young and the D-Backs would want Vasquez's salary covered. I don't think any move resembling this would go down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 02:13 PM) I think the Cheat and I are on the same page when it comes to Garland. http://southsidesox.com/story/2005/12/7/03514/0519 Unless the marketplace changes drastically, he is going to get a lot of money, and a lot of years. If this deal is done I think this is the key. I don't think KW would have a problem with offering JG going rate for dollars such as 12 mil. I think the problem is doing it for 4-5 years. Other teams will offer it but most of the time those deals look bad in the later years. If JV comes here for 2 guaranteed years hopefully a minor leaguer will step up and be read y at that time. The risk/benefit analysis of the longer contracts for pitchers is usually not worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(G&T @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:18 PM) Rosenthal Says a package could be Garland and Young and the D-Backs would want Vasquez's salary covered. I don't think any move resembling this would go down. That would be a bad move IMO. Garland and Young, then pay the FULL contract when the Yanks are already paying $3 mill per year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:23 PM) If this deal is done I think this is the key. I don't think KW would have a problem with offering JG going rate for dollars such as 12 mil. I think the problem is doing it for 4-5 years. Other teams will offer it but most of the time those deals look bad in the later years. If JV comes here for 2 guaranteed years hopefully a minor leaguer will step up and be read y at that time. The risk/benefit analysis of the longer contracts for pitchers is usually not worth it. It all depends... How great does Mark Buehrle look right now at the $9.5 million he would get in 2007, or Freddy Garcia for $8 million in 2006 and 2007? Some long term deals are damned smart when you look back on how much they get run up in the short term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:32 PM) It all depends... How great does Mark Buehrle look right now at the $9.5 million he would get in 2007, or Freddy Garcia for $8 million in 2006 and 2007? Some long term deals are damned smart when you look back on how much they get run up in the short term. Good point! With the way the market seems to be going, $10-12 mill a year will be a steal 3 or 4 years from now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeynach Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 Garland is a sinker baller, Vazquez is a fly ball pitcher, another Freddy G. Garland @ Cell for 1 Year >> Vazquez @ Cell for 2 yrs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(joeynach @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 08:35 PM) Garland is a sinker baller, Vazquez is a fly ball pitcher, another Freddy G. Garland @ Cell for 1 Year >> Vazquez @ Cell for 2 yrs Chris Young for 6 years is greater than either Garland for 1 year or Vazquez for 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I am not a huge supporter of Contreras, but either Garland or him for Vasquez straight-up would be a regression in talent. Don't do it KW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Young and Garland?? That would be horrible. I don't give a damn if Garland walks at the end of the year either at that expense. I hope to hell Rosenthal is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 02:32 PM) It all depends... How great does Mark Buehrle look right now at the $9.5 million he would get in 2007, or Freddy Garcia for $8 million in 2006 and 2007? Some long term deals are damned smart when you look back on how much they get run up in the short term. True but they were 3 year deals. Those aren't what I would consider the long term deals. Guaranteed 4-5 year deals are where I think KW will draw the line. JG will get that from someone else. Not here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 08:46 PM) Young and Garland?? That would be horrible. I don't give a damn if Garland walks at the end of the year either at that expense. I hope to hell Rosenthal is wrong. Including Young in the deal would be just as bad as trading Kazmir for Victor Zambrano. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjm676 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Another offseason, another Vazquez rumor.... What were the numbers on the contract that Garland turned down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjm676 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 If the Sox were to throw in Young, the D'Backs should throw in Carlos Quentin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hi8is Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 something like 3 years 28 million 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.