CanOfCorn Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 06:12 PM) You have signed Mr. Mediocre to a 3 year extension, which is basically a 4 year contract. Why lock yourself into mediocrity? I thought everyone said there would be a market correction anyway? I'd rather pay someone $13 million-$15 million a year who wins, than pledge all that money to Javier Vazquez. If the White Sox can commit over $40 million the next 4 seasons to Javier Vazquez, there is no reason Dye or Buerhle or Crede or for that matter (and I'm glad he's gone) Garcia should go elsewhere. Not to mention, if a player WANTS to stay with you. Someone that has excellent stuff, even if he has some issues, can pitch. It's good for Buehrle to see this. It's good for Crede to see this. The Sox aren't being cheap, but at the same time, they aren't overspending. One thing Lilly has that Vazquez doesn't have...is being a lefty. LHSP are commodities, and I would take Vaz over Lilly any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Maybe even three times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 04:37 PM) One thing Lilly has that Vazquez doesn't have...is being a lefty. LHSP are commodities, and I would take Vaz over Lilly any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Maybe even three times. +1 Not to mention that the Sox committed less money and fewer years to Vazquez. If Vazquez puts up a 4.30 ERA and eats 200 innings over each of the next two or three seasons, I'll be satisfied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) Every person that wants to rid themself of Vazquez probably wanted to get rid of Garland every year and sign Buerhle to a life time contract. If this 3 year extension is inked that will be a good thing. that one good year garland had really, really proved everyone wrong... not. unfortunately for your argument, he would have had to not suck balls last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 06:37 PM) Not to mention, if a player WANTS to stay with you. Someone that has excellent stuff, even if he has some issues, can pitch. It's good for Buehrle to see this. It's good for Crede to see this. The Sox aren't being cheap, but at the same time, they aren't overspending. One thing Lilly has that Vazquez doesn't have...is being a lefty. LHSP are commodities, and I would take Vaz over Lilly any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Maybe even three times. One other thing Lilly has is a winning record. Lets face it, the Cubs overpaid for Ted Lilly, most laughed about it thought the amount was staggering. KW complained about it. Told his soon-to-be free agent marquis players that they owed it to their families to test the market. This signing today is no better. If the White Sox were to overpay one of their players with an extension, albeit 2 seasons before they could hit the open market, you would hope it would be for someone other than Javier Vazquez, the team's #5 starter in 2006. As far as wanted to be a White Sox, like with most players, and I don't blame them, money will make you want to be anywhere. There are places I would rather not be, but if someone was willing to pay me $40+ milllion the next four years, I could really take a liking to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 06:50 PM) And if the Sox really want to they could always deal Vazquez after the '08 season to free up some available cash for free agency and this way they'll be trading a player with 3 years left on his deal as opposed to a guy who would only be arb eligible and looking at a $14M deal. I don't see this happening but it's certainly a possibility. exactly wat i was thinking, it gives us options for the future, since now we have a trading piece to land someone or maybe he turns into a star this year and we just saved a ton of money, and if he doesnt pan out then we dont have to worry about getting caught in a devestating contract, great move by KW, keeps a talented pitcher around at a fair price without restricting his creativity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 06:44 PM) +1 Not to mention that the Sox committed less money and fewer years to Vazquez. If Vazquez puts up a 4.30 ERA and eats 200 innings over each of the next two or three seasons, I'll be satisfied. Actually, Vazquez is committed to the White Sox for 4 seasons. The White Sox will be paying Vazquez a little bit more for those 4 seasons than the Cubs are paying Lilly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 to me, the second half of last year for vaz reminded me of what happened the first half to Jose Contreras in 05. He was pitchin great but not getting run support so he loses and people didn't go nutso about him until he had to completely shut down everyone in the second half and the bats came. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 I very much appreciate the rationale of extending Vazquez while his value is artificially low. It's a good way to sign someone at a bargainand I'm pleased that Kenny recognizes that he's likely to pitch better than he has the past few seasons. The problem in my mind is that there are no bargains in this market. I suppose I would have waited until next offseason to see if any of the young pitchers establish themselves or the market comes back to earth. The move reaks of desperation if you ask me. Kenny knew he couldn't get any of the other pitchers to sign a slightly below market short term deal and didn't want to go into '09 without any of the current starters so he paid the guy that would be easiest to sign. Personally, I agree that Buehrle has an outside HOF shot and would've rather signed him right now while his value has dipped a bit. I'd rather pay $15 or even $17 million for a guy who figures to be great than one who figures to be merely above average or perhaps good. The only problem is I wouldn't want to go much more than four years with Buehrle. I do commend the Sox organization again for refusing to give pitchers 5-6 year deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 I really like this deal and I think Vazquez is bound for a breakout year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 How is Vazquez a bargain? The guy won 11 games in 2006. That's more than $1 million a win. After the last 2 1/2 seasons he's put up, he was probably doing cartwheels after the White Sox agreed to this extension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitewashed in '05 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 I might give the guy a lot of s***, (he deserves it a lot) but this is a win win situation for the sox. Even if he doesn't round up to be like KW expects him to, the salary alone is good for a guy like him. I hope he does have a good year and many more to come in a sox uni. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 06:32 PM) I don't find the contract to be a bargain. That's where I totally disagree. If Vazquez puts up another season like the last 2 1/2, there would be no team interested in him at that price. You may think its a bargain now, but will you feel that way in 2009 or 2010? I don't think so, but admittedly I have never been a fan of Vazquez. If Scott Boras is across the table from you and says: "My client is the ONLY pitcher in the major leagues with 10 wins, 30 starts and 150 strikeouts in each of the last 7 seasons. Over the last nine years he ranks among the major league leaders in strikeouts (5th), starts (6th) and innings (8th)." And you get that guy for 3 years 34 million dollars. You have committed highway robbery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 06:46 PM) http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3660/so...actsheetmo8.jpg Someone update this. I have an updated version, I'll post it soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 How is Ted Lilly and Vazquez even a close comparison? Lilly only 2 times has put up a sub 4 era, and 2 season ago had a 5.6 era higher than any year in Javy's career. Ted Lilly has also never pitched over 200 innings in a season, compared to Javy doing it 6 out of 7 years with the only miss being 198 innings. Javy > Lilly Not even a close comparison Id bet that Javy puts up a better era in the AL than Lilly does in the NL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 12:58 AM) How is Vazquez a bargain? The guy won 11 games in 2006. That's more than $1 million a win. After the last 2 1/2 seasons he's put up, he was probably doing cartwheels after the White Sox agreed to this extension. Yeah, let's go by wins to judge him. Brilliance. If the White Sox were to overpay one of their players with an extension, albeit 2 seasons before they could hit the open market, you would hope it would be for someone other than Javier Vazquez, the team's #5 starter in 2006. How is it overpaying? A little more than $11 million per year for a guy who, at worst, is a league average starter who will give you 200 innings? Vazquez had his most 'unlucky' year as a starter this past season. He only coughed up 23 homers, his lowest amount since 1999. His K/BB ratio was better than 3-to-1. Fine, throw the 'wins/losses' stat at me. It's useless -- it has no predictive value going forward, so it's COMPLETELY irrelevant to the discussion. If Vazquez goes through his 'sixth inning' act again this year, Ozzie may actually adjust now that he has a trustable 6th/7th inning guy in Aardsma. But I doubt that happens... Vazquez didn't lose 'stuff' in those innings, he just hung pitches at inopportune times. If Vazquez pitches like he has the past couple years over the life of the contract, it's a slight overpayment. But if one year, he lives up to his DiPS, he's an absolute bargain. I'd guess that he falls somewhere in the middle and gives the Sox about a 4.35-4.65 ERA over the contract, which would be pretty decent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Well if you take out Javy's rookie year with a terrible Expos team where he was 5-15, hed be +5. Did anyone even notice at the same age Javy's pitched 2x as many innings as Lilly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 07:00 PM) If Scott Boras is across the table from you and says: "My client is the ONLY pitcher in the major leagues with 10 wins, 30 starts and 150 strikeouts in each of the last 7 seasons. Over the last nine years he ranks among the major league leaders in strikeouts (5th), starts (6th) and innings (8th)." And you get that guy for 3 years 34 million dollars. You have committed highway robbery. But Scott would have forgotten that his client is also a below .500 career pitcher whose ERA has been higher than league average more than its been lower, and that you already have control of his contract for 2 seasons. How he ranks the last 9 years, really is of no concern to me. Its what I can project his next 4 seasons, is what's important, and I think its more of the same mediocrity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideaway Lights Posted March 7, 2007 Author Share Posted March 7, 2007 I just love how everyone making fun of how Wins aren't really a great benchmark of a pitcher's performance probably never mention that ERA is a bogus stat because it needs to be park adjusted, how WHIP is a bogus stat because the defensive range factor of your infielders severely affects how many ground balls are hits, and how wildly erratic strike zones from league to league and umpire to umpire affect your walks and strikeouts night in and night out. Sorry guys, but when a guy is sub .500 over 200 decisions, something is wrong with that pitcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Yeah because it has nothing to do with 5-15 recrod as a rookie with the Expos. In fact compare another pitcher who has played as many games with the Expos to Javy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 07:13 PM) But Scott would have forgotten that his client is also a below .500 career pitcher whose ERA has been higher than league average more than its been lower, and that you already have control of his contract for 2 seasons. How he ranks the last 9 years, really is of no concern to me. Its what I can project his next 4 seasons, is what's important, and I think its more of the same mediocrity. his record doesnt mean much pitching for mediocre teams. Not to mention its a worthless stat for most pitchers. And he would also push for him to NOT sign this extension because the next 2 years like you say, he would actually be paid MORE. QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 07:15 PM) Sorry guys, but when a guy is sub .500 over 200 decisions, something is wrong with that pitcher. Yeah, he played for some horrendous teams. His best months after he made adjustments to his motion and stance, he was 2-5 with a 3.61 and 70+ k's. Would you say his record is more important than either of his other stats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 01:15 AM) I just love how everyone making fun of how Wins aren't really a great benchmark of a pitcher's performance probably never mention that ERA is a bogus stat because it needs to be park adjusted, how WHIP is a bogus stat because the defensive range factor of your infielders severely affects how many ground balls are hits, and how wildly erratic strike zones from league to league and umpire to umpire affect your walks and strikeouts night in and night out. There's no comparison. W/L is an awful way to judge a pitcher. Yes, a lot of bad pitchers will have bad W/L records, but they're also bad for other reasons. And yes, ERA needs to be park adjusted, and it's done reasonable easily. Too bad you can't do the same for W/L, because it has as much or more to do with how your offense performs on those nights than the pitcher himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideaway Lights Posted March 7, 2007 Author Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 07:17 PM) Yeah because it has nothing to do with 5-15 recrod as a rookie with the Expos. In fact compare another pitcher who has played as many games with the Expos to Javy... Ok, let's discuss Pedro Martinez, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 07:08 PM) How is Ted Lilly and Vazquez even a close comparison? Lilly only 2 times has put up a sub 4 era, and 2 season ago had a 5.6 era higher than any year in Javy's career. Ted Lilly has also never pitched over 200 innings in a season, compared to Javy doing it 6 out of 7 years with the only miss being 198 innings. Javy > Lilly Not even a close comparison Id bet that Javy puts up a better era in the AL than Lilly does in the NL. Lilly did have a lower ERA in the AL than Vazquez did last season and a lower BAA. I think Lilly sucks, and I believe $10 million a year for him is way too much. Vazquez getting even more for the same length is equally ridiculous when you had time on your side with Vazquez. He was under team control for 2 seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 07:23 PM) He was under team control for 2 seasons. For more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 07:22 PM) Ok, let's discuss Pedro Martinez, for example. I wouldn't embarrass someone by comparing them to Pedro Martinez. 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.