this organization has done really well with the "young guy" in the 5th spot over the years. where's Danny Wright and the merry-go-round of 5th starters when u need them?

Why make the assumption that either Vaz or Garland or traded? Why do you assume that Vaz is even going anywhere? From everything I've read, the Sox aren't really openly shopping Vazquez at all.

 

If anything, it's Count, Buehrle/Garland, Vazquez, BMac, young guy...and that's if another starter gets dealt.

 

The assumption gets made because both Garland and Vazquez have been rumored to be involved the most. There was information that came out recently that stated that the Houston deal was made from their end for either Jon or Javy.

this organization has done really well with the "young guy" in the 5th spot over the years. where's Danny Wright and the merry-go-round of 5th starters when u need them?

Sure... DW had mediocre minor league numbers (7.5 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 3.60 ERA) while being about a year old for his league at each stop. Then posted a 5.50 ERA with 51BB/50K in his first 100 Major league innings.

 

BMac had excellent minor league numbers (10.25 K/9, 1.79BB/9, 3.39 ERA) while being about a year young for his league at each stop. Then posted a 4.18 ERA with 29BB/79K in his first 100 major league innings, where the run environment was about .2-.5 runs higher than when Wright came up thanks to the new roof configuration and the overall scoring going up.

 

Solid comparison. Marry Otti.

I can't believe Vazquez still has so many people fooled.

 

The guy is a born loser. It's obvious in his mental make-up. Javy will never ever live up to his potential.

If we deal another SP, we better upgrade the leadoff position. We can still win if only have reliable (proven) SP, but we are going to have to resort to a 2000-like style except with a better bullpen.

The assumption gets made because both Garland and Vazquez have been rumored to be involved the most. There was information that came out recently that stated that the Houston deal was made from their end for either Jon or Javy.

 

And do you think there's a reason why Javy was not discussed further?

 

He's older than Garland, he's getting paid more than Garland, and he had a worse year. Under normal circumstances, it would be a no-brainer that you'd trade Vazquez before Garland, especially if given the same package for both. Instead, Williams seemingly didn't discuss anything regarding Vazquez being traded - I wonder why?

 

All that article stated was that the Astros would have been more than willing to give the same package...not that it was discussed.

 

I can't believe Vazquez still has so many people fooled.

 

The guy is a born loser. It's obvious in his mental make-up. Javy will never ever live up to his potential.

 

Sounds like a 2005 horse with skin of bronze.

 

Psychological problems can be fixed. Mechanical problems can be fixed. Mediocre stuff problems usually can't.

this organization has done really well with the "young guy" in the 5th spot over the years. where's Danny Wright and the merry-go-round of 5th starters when u need them?

 

So basically, no team should EVER bring up young pitchers because ya never know if they are going to be good? Ummm...yeah.

Javier Vazquez had a lower BAA, OBP and WHIP than Garland and has better stuff than Garland. I'm not saying we should get rid of Garland, I'm just saying that may be something they are considering when shopping their pitchers.

 

Vazquez is a strikeout pitcher and that is sexy (Alot of baseball writers have used this term lately).

Javier Vazquez had a lower BAA, OBP and WHIP than Garland and has better stuff than Garland. I'm not saying we should get rid of Garland, I'm just saying that may be something they are considering when shopping their pitchers.

 

Vazquez is a strikeout pitcher and that is sexy (Alot of baseball writers have used this term lately).

 

Chicks dig the strike out?

And do you think there's a reason why Javy was not discussed further?

 

He's older than Garland, he's getting paid more than Garland, and he had a worse year. Under normal circumstances, it would be a no-brainer that you'd trade Vazquez before Garland, especially if given the same package for both. Instead, Williams seemingly didn't discuss anything regarding Vazquez being traded - I wonder why?

 

All that article stated was that the Astros would have been more than willing to give the same package...not that it was discussed.

Sounds like a 2005 horse with skin of bronze.

 

Psychological problems can be fixed. Mechanical problems can be fixed. Mediocre stuff problems usually can't.

 

Oh God, I'm so tired of people comparing him to Contreras. Contreras was the greatest pitcher in Cuban history. Vazquez had two good years in a s***ty division in a s***ty league pitching in a huge stadium with absolutely no pressure on him.

I can't believe Vazquez still has so many people fooled.

 

The guy is a born loser. It's obvious in his mental make-up. Javy will never ever live up to his potential.

 

Everything is always black and white to you; ever stop to think maybe everything isn't as simple as you make it out to be?

Vazquez has over 200 decisions in the major leagues. He had a couple of great seasons in Montreal and a couple of poor ones. The Yankees couldn't fix him, neither could the D-Backs. Even Coop couldn't fix him and he fixes everyone. Expecting Vazquez to be anything more than a .500 pitcher is being overly optimistic IMO.

So basically, no team should EVER bring up young pitchers because ya never know if they are going to be good? Ummm...yeah.

 

do any of you seriously remember that this team has tried the young guy as fifth starter many many times in recent years? failing horribly every time. they finally won something when they got 5 solid starters. obvilously no one on this board can read a post. i never compared mccarthy to danny wright. if you loved the rauch/munoz/wright/guy off the street years...more power to you.

And do you think there's a reason why Javy was not discussed further?

 

He's older than Garland, he's getting paid more than Garland, and he had a worse year. Under normal circumstances, it would be a no-brainer that you'd trade Vazquez before Garland, especially if given the same package for both. Instead, Williams seemingly didn't discuss anything regarding Vazquez being traded - I wonder why?

 

Yeah, I think KW likes Vazquez and stubbornly would rather not deal him because that might be admitting the trade for him was a mistake. For whatever reason, KW values him. It isn't THAT difficult to see why; he was very close on several instances last year to really getting on a roll and getting things on track.

 

Vazquez has over 200 decisions in the major leagues. He had a couple of great seasons in Montreal and a couple of poor ones. The Yankees couldn't fix him, neither could the D-Backs. Even Coop couldn't fix him and he fixes everyone. Expecting Vazquez to be anything more than a .500 pitcher is being overly optimistic IMO.

 

I thought wins and losses didn't matter when analyzing starting pitchers...

Vazquez has over 200 decisions in the major leagues. He had a couple of great seasons in Montreal and a couple of poor ones. The Yankees couldn't fix him, neither could the D-Backs. Even Coop couldn't fix him and he fixes everyone. Expecting Vazquez to be anything more than a .500 pitcher is being overly optimistic IMO.

 

It took a while for Coop to "fix" Contreras. Javy's success in Aug and Sept may very well be when Coop clicked with him. We shall see.

do any of you seriously remember that this team has tried the young guy as fifth starter many many times in recent years? failing horribly every time. they finally won something when they got 5 solid starters. obvilously no one on this board can read a post. i never compared mccarthy to danny wright. if you loved the rauch/munoz/wright/guy off the street years...more power to you.

When the Sox won the WS, El Duque was in the rotation, and he was awfully shaky after a nice beginning. McCarthy actually had a couple of great starts for the World Champions when they were fading. He pitched a gem in Fenway Park. I think even with the 5 supposedly solid starters last year, there were a lot of question marks. Buerhle was basically BP the second half. The staff was 9th in ERA in the AL I believe. It seems like some have the idea that the White Sox had 5 Cy Young winners in the rotation.

Carlos Gonzalez and Micah Owings as a MINIMUM from the D-Backs.

 

 

If Josh Byrnes gives up those 2 then he will be on the first bus out of Phoenix. I don't think anybody in Phoenix would like that deal that is way to much to give up.

.

I thought wins and losses didn't matter when analyzing starting pitchers...

 

I've never said that.

I've never said that.

 

Well, I'm glad not everyone completely discounts their value.

do any of you seriously remember that this team has tried the young guy as fifth starter many many times in recent years? failing horribly every time. they finally won something when they got 5 solid starters. obvilously no one on this board can read a post. i never compared mccarthy to danny wright. if you loved the rauch/munoz/wright/guy off the street years...more power to you.

 

Yes, I remember that very well...but all Brandon McCarthy has to do is keep the White Sox in the game as the fifth starter. He doesn't have to strike out 200. He doesn't have to have an ERA below 3.00. He just has to pitch 6+ innings with an ERA in the mid-4's and he will win 10-12 games next year.

 

But I always hope for more and think he can do it.

Vazquez is also more expensive than Garland. I think he's $12.5 million in 2007 and then its arbitration in 2008, and its very rare a guy doesn't get a raise under that scenerio. So Vazquez could be a 1 year guy. If I was KW, he would have been the first guy I got rid of, but KW has had a hard on for Vazquez for several years. If Vazquez were to pitch as well as KW envisions, he may cost $20 million in 2008.

I thought wins and losses didn't matter when analyzing starting pitchers...

 

Labeling a guy as a .500 pitcher is just another way of saying that he's mediocre. I think that Dick knows better.

 

Wins and losses are team stats, of course. Like, when Roger Clemens loses a 1-0 game, you don't pin that on him. The Astros lose those games as a team.

 

It's a simple concept that a lot of people can't grasp, for whatever reason.

 

Well, I'm glad not everyone completely discounts their value.

 

Oh, you let me down.

Vazquez is also more expensive than Garland. I think he's $12.5 million in 2007 and then its arbitration in 2008, and its very rare a guy doesn't get a raise under that scenerio. So Vazquez could be a 1 year guy. If I was KW, he would have been the first guy I got rid of, but KW has had a hard on for Vazquez for several years. If Vazquez were to pitch as well as KW envisions, he may cost $20 million in 2008.

 

If he pitches as well as KW envisions, he's trade value will be much higher than it is now. No way he gets $20 million. Clemens got, what $18 mil from the Astros, the highest salary for a pitcher ever. Javier Vazquez will not set the mark. THis is all beside the fact that if Javy pitches like KW thinks he can, we'll be damn good.

Vazquez has over 200 decisions in the major leagues. He had a couple of great seasons in Montreal and a couple of poor ones. The Yankees couldn't fix him, neither could the D-Backs. Even Coop couldn't fix him and he fixes everyone. Expecting Vazquez to be anything more than a .500 pitcher is being overly optimistic IMO.

Which Player would you rather have?

 

              IP    H    R   ER  HR  BB    K    ERA

Player A   200.1  184  116  108  29  98  160   4.85

Player B   202.2  206  116  109  23  56  184   4.84

 

Answer: (Highlight to read) This is the first calendar year of Contreras and Vazquez in a White Sox uniform. I'd say that Coop fixed Vazquez just as much as he did Contreras.

Oh God, I'm so tired of people comparing him to Contreras. Contreras was the greatest pitcher in Cuban history. Vazquez had two good years in a s***ty division in a s***ty league pitching in a huge stadium with absolutely no pressure on him.

 

So, I am interpreting the first part in two ways. Either...

 

* Cuban League = Major Leagues

* Vazquez wouldn't be good in the Cuban League

 

And regardless, Contreras couldn't handle the big leagues early on because he was a headcase. I seem to recall him choking badly against the Red Sox early in his career.

 

(also, please indeed see below)

 

Which Player would you rather have?

 

              IP    H    R   ER  HR  BB    K    ERA

Player A   200.1  184  116  108  29  98  160   4.85

Player B   202.2  206  116  109  23  56  184   4.84

 

Answer: (Highlight to read)

 

:wub:

Edited December 11, 200619 yr by witesoxfan