Vazquez trade

Schwks · Post by **Schwks** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:26 am

I love this trade for Atlanta...though I am disappointed that the Mets did nto get him. I know that Flowers put himself on the map this year with a monster Fall League season. HE also showed good pop in High A I think. My question is why trade a #2-#3 type starter for a guy who may or may not pan out by time he hits bigs in 2-3 years? Ariz Fall league is notorious for being a free for all hitters league, where 300 batting averages are the rule not the exception.

Atlanta is improving itself with a staff of Hudson, Jurjens, Vazquez, and then two of Hanson, JoJo Reyes, Campillo, Morton, Smoltz. If they do get Peavy, they become serious contenders in East. If Francoeur rebounds, their lineup is solid too.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:05 am

i doubt hudson pitches much this year. white sox are getting rid of all the players ozzie was down on last year. they are also clearing salary. i think the white sox will be very effected by the economy and many of the partners are in real estate- taking a bath. the yankees not taking abreu to arbitration is a clear sign things are changing. they essentially gave up 2 draft picks to not re up him because they did not want to gamble on the $. a year ago that was chump change. that all said- the mets have the worst front office in baseball and washington is not far behind. the phillies are like the white sox- they will cut payroll. florida is dumping- but still might be good. division again is winable, so the braves are trying to get back in it. looks like towers will be talking to himself about peavy- although kenny williams is capable of anything- so he may trade these guys to s.d.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:54 am

Good move for Atlanta and only had to gave up one good prospect at a position that is as stable for the big league club as a position can be in baseball. Flowers is a big guy who I am not sure projects out to be a big-league catcher, but could be a born DH.

Strategically it makes sense to have a veteran presence for two years (less maybe if the Bravo's are out of it again at the All-Star break and Vazquez could attract alot of attention to a contender) while the newbies cut their teeth a bit.

Tactically, as a Braves fan, I would be happier if Vazquez hadn't tanked so bad in his last three starts. A lot of mileage is on that arm and you always have to wonder about damaged goods. At least Vazquez won't have to face the Yanks, Indians, or Tiger stadium as much next year.

As long as Vazquez can deliver 180+ IP, he has good stuff (almost a strikeout per inning) and control (K to BB ratio over three). I would rank him as either a very strong #2 or a workable #1 in the rotation.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:08 pm

I think some are underestimating what Atlanta paid for Vazquez and Boone Logan.

The White Sox are getting Flowers (who can be a major league catcher) and Brett Lillibridge, a very talented middle infielder in addition to two other minor leaguers.

It is not like Vazquez is a staff ace, although I do expect his numbers to improve going from the AL to the NL and pitching in ATL should help as well.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:06 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:

I think some are underestimating what Atlanta paid for Vazquez and Boone Logan.

The White Sox are getting Flowers (who can be a major league catcher) and Brett Lillibridge, a very talented middle infielder in addition to two other minor leaguers.

It is not like Vazquez is a staff ace, although I do expect his numbers to improve going from the AL to the NL and pitching in ATL should help as well. Really? You saw Flowers play in Arizona, so I respect what you say about his catching ability. I WAS looking foward to watching him in Gwinnett, assuming the Braves had him there in AAA after his AFL results, but all I have read on him had his size as a hinderence to blocking balls in the dirt, general mobility behind the plate and where his arm may be ok, he really had trouble getting people out with it.

Lillibridge when he was in the Pirates organization and initially in the Braves was a top ranked SS prospect. His performance last year, especially in the hitting department, really took some of the shine off of his star. Good/great speed and good defense, but may play out as just another super-sub utility player.

As to Vazquez, the last time he was below 200 innings (but not above 217) was 2004, and that was 198. That is alot of innings, but his pitch count last year was only over 110 seven times in 33 starts and above 120 only three times. He is 32, so the next couple of years are the tail end of his "prime". With an average strikeout rate over the last five years at 9 K's per 10 innings and an average of about 3.5 K's per walk, you are looking at a solid innings eater with heat and control. His five year average WHIP is 1.255, so he is doing a pretty good job of limiting baserunners. He is not Johan, but those numbers put him in CC and Jake-land with the exception of ERA (there is a lot you cannot control in ERA), and he is a LOT cheaper.

What is not to like?

[ December 04, 2008, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

Schwks · Post by **Schwks** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:40 am

It is hard not to agree with Ed on this one...though I quite naturally have no Atl love. Vaz was very, very good in last 2/3 of 07. In 08 he was alternately good and mediocre. His label as a non-clutch pitcher seems to have its genesis in his last 3 starts, when he was not good at all as the W Sox fought for Division. Prior to that, however, he had been pretty solid for 5-6 weeks.

To me, the guy as is constitutes a solid #3 on a good staff. Why? He k's almost a batter an inning and routinely pitches a lot of innings. He also STILL has the potential on any given year, or month to raise up his game to a #1 or (more likely ) #2 SP. Why?

His k/bb ratio is well over 3-1. He regularly goes deep into games. He basically limits baserunners.

Finally, Vaz is a relative bargain right now. I think he is owed 11 mill a season over next 2. Derek Lowe will beat that by 33% easy. Heck a guy like Garland will get that, Lohse got that. Id much rather have Vaz then Lohse or Garland and Id rather have Vaz for 2 at 11 then Lowe for 16 over 3.

Cmon, how can you argue for Lillibridge? When a guy gets traded several times before even getting a regular shot at playing time, what does that tell you? Flowers mught someday be a good hitter, but he is a SINGLE A PLAYER right now....anything can happen between now and the bigs.

As a Mets fan, I completely agree that their front office stinks, because they really never make a 5 year plan and stick to it. They operate ad hoc and react to rather then create a strategy.

Schwks · Post by **Schwks** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:46 am

Headhunters, I have great respect for K Williams, especially since he basically has reinvented the post-hype sleeper( a fantasy strategy) in real life...Quentin, Danks and Floyd alone should be enough to keep Williams in a GM job for the next several decades...not to mention finally finding a Cuban who COULD play...Alexei R. But I question whether trading based upon the whims of his whackadoo manager, is smart. Id rather have Vaz then Ozzie...I never heard of another manager having a problem with Vaz.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:52 am

where did it say i agreed with it? one of the big big big problems with communication; verbal or written, is people put a bias into what someone says. i just said they are trading guys ozzie dissed. i live in chicago- he came down hard on swisher and vazquez. i think vazquez is an excellent pickup by the braves. they are the best orginazation in bball in my opinion. the fact that williams is collecting minor league middle infielders tells me the other reason this is being done is to cut payroll because what the sox got is probably not a lot. like i said- maybe towers likes 2 of these guys and 1 or 2 of the sox guys and will trade peavy. if not it is , without a doubt 1) trading 2 guys ozzie did not like 2) salary dump.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:53 am

Originally posted by Schwks:

As a Mets fan, I completely agree that their front office stinks, because they really never make a 5 year plan and stick to it. They operate ad hoc and react to rather then create a strategy. Realistically, in modern baseball, the only people with a five year plan are newly hired GM's and Managers who want to be in those jobs for the next five years.

The Yankees, RedSox, Tigers, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, and White Sox have no need for even a two year plan since they can buy talent to plug holes.

The deal itself was good for both sides. Atlanta rents an innings gobbler for a year or two while the White Sox unload some payroll and get a couple of prospects.

Most fans take the known quantity of the trade as the better side for their team. The Santana and Holliday trade's bear that out. The Braves fans know they're getting 200 innings. They're happy. The White Sox get two prospects who may blossom and assuming their payroll isn't cut, enough money to buy another very decent player of need. CWS Management is happy.

A good deal for both teams.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:58 am

btw- edward kings- if vazquez pitches like he has for the sox; you will watch games where he throws 40 strikes that pretty much can't be hit. then he will walk a guy, throw a pitch 85 mph right down the middle of the plate, walk another guy, repeat. it has to drive a manager crazy. but he is all the things you said and maybe going to the braves he wins 18 games- he has the stuff for sure.

Schwks · Post by **Schwks** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:21 am

Realistically, in modern baseball, the only people with a five year plan are newly hired GM's and Managers who want to be in those jobs for the next five years.

I disagree with this statement. Perhaps a five year plan is unrealistic given the impatience that leads to firings. Certainly at least a 3 year plan is very much needed for success. Even where the plan fails, and even where there is enough money to overcome the plan faltering, a plan other then "lets sign big money guys" is needed.

Take the Yanks...even if they have year to year payroll of $200 mil, they still cannot just buy every guy on their 25 man roster. So how to successfully plug those holes created by A Rod's 27 million, Jeter's 17, Mo's 13, Posada's 15, Petite's 16, Damon's 15, Abreu's 16, Giambi's 23. That leaves 17 spots with about 50 mill to spend.

In current times, the ONLY way to build a consistent winner is to develop a core of talent from within and only THEN, will adding names through trades and FA get you to that point, irrespective of how much money you have to spend. The Yankees were great for 12 years because they were able to build around homegrown, cheap talent. Ditto Red Sox and Braves, I think the only consistent winners of last 15 years.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:28 am

1998 yankees= 114 wins. starting 9= posada, jeter, bernie. home grown. starting 5= pettite home grown. saves- rivera. 2 foriegn purchase for starters. sounds like it is better said- develope a few great, great players and fill in 60% with players you buy. many teams can do the former- twins, braves, florida, lad, arizona. to sustain it you need that 60% $$$$$. don't forget luck- injuries happen. i just have a feeling the yanks have had their run. they will be good- but posada, jeter, riveria, pettite were great- or near great players that avoided injuries for the most part.there are 30 teams. winning once is tough let alone 4 times. i see teams coming around on the defense, bullpen method. i think they knew that all along- but the 10-9 games "grew the game". sorta like college football- you can't score 50 points a game- your fired. unless you are charlie weis. irish should hope tommy tubberville is still around next year- he can coach.

Schwks · Post by **Schwks** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:47 am

There is no question great deal of luck involved. But if you are the avg team that has say 100 mill to work with, and an avg good player cost you 10 mill on FA market, a very good player 15 mill and a superstar 20+ mill, you better have 5-10 homegrowns who are controllable for 5 years at severe discounts.

I hate the Yanks but I liked that they stood by their young guys last year. And their plan did not work out, but if Hughes or Kennedy even become a solid #3, and Joba stays healthy(and sober) in whichever role, they benefitted themselves over next 5 years by NOT making the deal.

Theses same reasons are why I hated trading Milledge and Kazmir.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:04 am

Schwks, plans have to be year-to-year, even those are becoming month-to-month. Various Progressions of minor leaguers, trades, contracts, payroll, injuries... these factors alone would throw out any "plans".

Once any part of planning goes awry, the planner in us vanishes and becomes a reactionary.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:42 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Schwks, plans have to be year-to-year, even those are becoming month-to-month. Various Progressions of minor leaguers, trades, contracts, payroll, injuries... these factors alone would throw out any "plans".

Once any part of planning goes awry, the planner in us vanishes and becomes a reactionary. I agreed with your original comment in that I don't think 5 year plans work. If the pirates didn't do it in the last 3 or 6 or 9, why should I think another 5 will make a difference. If they have a plan and it bears fruit that will be a maximum of three. I don't think The Rays had a five year plan, for example. They weren't good ever and they at some point found that they ended up with talent in the minors and then they planned around that and that started at most two years ago, but probably more like one.

Still and all, I agree that most teams are reactionary and that gets them in trouble unless they are the Yankees who can afford it. But some other teams do have plans and see them through. The A's sold off their guys for money and prospects so as they might have a chance to use both resources to make a winner. We can debate whether it will work in 2009 or 2010 but you can see clearly that they had a plan and they are continuing to follow through on it. The plan did not go smoothly as every prospect is not working out on schedule, but that is why you trade one guy for 3-6 prospects. You plan for plans not always working out.

I agree that with the possible exception of the Yankees no team can afford to not plan ahead and sell off the farm and plug holes with money forever. It just costs too much. The Red Sox can't even afford that and you can see that the White Sox are trying to rebuild right now. I think you can see it clearly in those two teams. There has been a method to everything they have done in the last 2-3 years.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:46 am

Originally posted by headhunters:

where did it say i agreed with it? one of the big big big problems with communication; verbal or written, is people put a bias into what someone says. So says Sir-Spin-a-Lot!

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:48 am

But I question whether trading based upon the whims of his whackadoo manager, is smart.

Schwks · Post by **Schwks** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:20 am

In my head, I always equate baseball GM'ing to a game of Hearts. Once you make your decision to either shoot the moon or avoid hearts altogether, You need to follow through or else you are going to lose BIG.

In or around 2003-2004, the Mets management "committed" to their youngsters. THough they had made the playoffs in 99 and 2000, the team basically was not competitive. Their philandering GM Steve Phillips was ousted, a Duquette was ushered in and lo and behold, the Mets were treading water at .500 in July 04, with the East as open as Sharon Stone's legs in Basic Instinct.

And with as much facile as they had talked about their commitment to their system, and a "plan" they trade Kazmir for Victor Zambrano, a converted infielder, with good stuff, bad results and already a stint on DL in 04 for elbow problems. Z sucked then got hurt, the Mets tanked in 04 and only by going crazy with the purse and overpaying for Pedro and Beltran and taking on massive Delgado contract, were they able to become competitve again in 06.