Thanks for the compliments. :-)  

You're a good guy yourself with many informative posts - keep up the great work. :-)

Regarding Vazquez, I was amazed back in 2002 in Montreal when most GMs wanted Vazquez and not Colon.  Granted, Colon has his faults, but I thought he was definitely a better pitcher than Vazquez, who I thought at the time was a good pitcher, but not in Colon's category.

Thanks for the ESPN GameLog info. - your analysis is very interesting - I never realized Vazquez fluctuated that much in his BB/K rate from month to month.  Most say he has good command, but at times, it seems he can become erratic.  

One other thing I found interesting from Vazquez's ESPN player page was the STATS Inc. Scouting Report they did on Vazquez's pitches.  They mentioned two main negatives:

1. He tends to overthrow his fastball, further emphasizing your thought on his fastball flattening out, leading to an increased number of homeruns.
2. He tends to hang his curveball over the inner-third of the plate, leading to it getting crushed out of the park for more homeruns, as you suggested.

1. He seems to have trouble repeating his mechanics.  
2. It is imperative he finds an efficient, repeatable delivery so that he can avoid a serious injury due to his early career overuse.  

In Chicago, he may not have to be an ace, but being that expectations are now high in Chicago after winning the WS and expecting more WS, it will be interesting to see if Vazquez can handle the pressure.  He may rebound a bit, but to expect him to be as good as in his Montreal days might be asking a bit much in my opinion.  And even in Montreal, he still experienced bouts of wildness and loss of command at times as you pointed out.  

As a whole, I think the White Sox received a pitcher who will probably have hot and cold streaks, just like he did in Montreal, though if he doesn't handle the added pressure of winning in Chicago (which really didn't exist in Montreal,) he may never be as good as he was in Montreal.  

Giving up a potential superstar center fielder for him, especially when they had McCarthy in the wings, seems like a bad deal to me from the White Sox's perspective.

Just my 2 cents on that.

It will certainly be interesting to see how Vazquez does in Chicago.

Again, thanks for the kind words; you keep up the great work as well! :-)

Take care and have a great weekend!

No offense, but I keep thinking that you have some bias against the Indians or that you are a Twins fan, because partly your argument for the Twins is also based on prospects. :-)

No offense, but the Twins and Indians are pretty much in the same boat financially - they both are smaller market teams that are bound to lose free agents via free agency to the Yankees, Red Sox, etc.  Not everyone will do a Radke or even a Sabathia and remain with the team that drafted them.

Therefore, there's no guarantee that Santana will still be there - I don't know how long his current contract is for, but I bet it's around 2010 or even earlier before his contract expires.  If he pitches as well as he has, do you really think Pohlad is going to pony up the money to keep him?  It's likely he'll have to pay more for Santana than he had to for Radke, who accepted a hometown discount.  There's no guarantee that Santana will do that, especially when other teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can outbid the Twins, as they can the Indians.

If Santana doesn't stay, that will dramatically change the Twins' rotation, even if Baker and Liriano turn out as well as expected, and most still consider them as prospects.  :-)

As I recall, Liriano also had an injury - I don't recall if it was his elbow or what.  So far, Liriano has rebounded from it.  Therefore, don't write off Adam Miller just yet; he could make a similar rebound, and his stuff was comparable to Liriano's before the injury.  Plus, he was advancing quite quickly before his injury-ridden 2005 season.

No offense, but your anti-Indians' bias is really coming out with this comment :-):

"to be honest, I'm seeing a lot of fringy bullpen guys and back-end starters."

No offense, but you see guys like Andrew Brown, Tony Sipp, and Edward Mujica as "fringy bullpen guys"?  Brown's numbers weren't far behind Cabrera's, and most think Cabrera will be a future closer.  That makes it sound like Brown can probably be a pretty good setup man or even a closer himself in the future.  

Mujica is only 21 (will be 22 in May 2006,) and passed the AA test to this point, with the only real weaknesses being a H/IP being just over 1 (that's really being picky in my opinion) and having to handle lefties better (a more legitimate concern,) but he is young enough to overcome that problem.  Plus, I've heard his stuff is quite good, even closer-like.

Sipp may be older, but has only 2 years of professional experience and has a great K rate.  Plus, his numbers were better as a starter, not as a reliever; he hadn't relieved in a few years, which I believe affected his command a bit (probably was not used to the set position, plus coming into an inning instead of starting it.)  We'll see this year if he handles the bullpen role better as he will be out of the bullpen full-time now.

Those three right there, in my mind, dispute the phrase "fringy bullpen guys."  Tell me three Twins relivers that you feel are better than those three, preferably at High-A to AAA.

Those aren't the only three, mind you.  I don't think Rafael Perez is "fringy," nor if Thomas Mastny and Bear Bay are moved to the bullpen - they're strikeout numbers are around 1 K/IP - that doesn't spell "fringy" to me.

And, as you indicated with Cotts, he's gotten better than what most thought he would be; who's to say that the Indians' farm system won't produce "better-than-the-stats-say" relievers from their farm system; I think Rafael Betancourt is one good example of that in recent years.  

But the three above, in my mind, cannot be classified as "fringy bullpen guys."  I think even you have to agree with that. :-)

As for "back-end starters" - you've already mentioned Sowers as a #3, which in my mind is a "middle-of-the-rotation starter," not a #4 or #5.  I still think he could be a #2 - after all, there must be a good reason why some scouts think he COULD be the next Tom Glavine, who by most accounts was a #2, and even was a #1 for a brief period of time before Maddux signed with the Braves.

Curious, why do you say that Sowers will average 25 IP less per season than Buehrle?  You think Sowers will get injured, won't be as good as Buehrle, or what?  

No offense, but an Indians' prospect you've said you've liked in the past and even agree (to an extent) that he is comparable to Buehrle, but you have to add an extra negative that you can't substantiate makes me think you have some type of anti-Indians bias. :-)  No offense.  I find that a bit amusing. :-)

If Miller regains his health and progresses as he did before, he's not a #4 or #5.  Jason Davis, if he can become more consistent with his command, is not a #4 or #5; if he's shifted to the bullpen, he has more ability than a "fringy bullpen guy."

I know you're not fond of Carmona - personally, I think he could be a #3, though in the Indians' rotation, he may only be fourth or fifth, depending on the other pitchers.  One poster on here believes that Silva may be a good comp for Carmona if you look at his ratios.  You like Silva - Carmona could become another Silva in time - he is only 21 and has strong groundball ratios and great command, much like Silva.

Plus, I didn't mention very young prospects like Jensen Lewis and Joe Ness, prospects that project to be better than back-end rotation starters at this point.  They are too far away to be sure (much like the Twins' pitching depth in the lower minors,) but they're off to better starts than back-end starting pitching prospects in my opinion.

Again, you mention about the Twins having Santana and Silva; well, the Indians still have Sabathia, Lee, and Westbrook, and will have at least Sabathia and Lee through the end of this decade, as I think Lee will certainly get a new contract offer that should keep him through the end of the decade, Westbrook might stay, though Sowers or Carmona could replace him as the #3, and Sabathia is locked up through 2009.

I think it will partly depend on how much money Larry Dolan is willing to spend, but if the new SportsTime Ohio regional network is as successful as they hope, it could allow the Indians to spend $80-$100 mill.+ each year, and that would certainly be in effect by the 2010 season.  That will determine whether a lot of the current Indians remain or not into the next decade.

Even so, I think Peralta, Sizemore, Marte, and possibly Shoppach will still be here in 2010.  Victor has a club option for 2010.  Hafner is here through 2008 or 2009 (don't remember which year off the top of my head.)  If guys like Gutierrez, Snyder, Garko, Francisco, Mulhern, Aubrey, Head, Crowe, etc. develop as expected, those guys would likely be here as well.  Right now, that's still projected to be a very good team, and likely an experienced one at that as most, if not all of those players should have at least a season or two of experience by 2010.

I think GM Mark Shapiro's plan when he was rebuilding the farm system was to make sure to the best of his ability that the Indians wouldn't have to go through another rebuilding period that they went through from 2002-2005; instead, they would trade off the better players they couldn't afford to keep, get top-rated prospects for them, and plug in prospects that were waiting in the wings into the spots vacated by the traded players.  At the same time, Shapiro would make sure they drafted well to keep the farm system stacked, just like it was in the '90s.  

That will help to make sure the Indians don't have to have a totally green team taking the field, learning the game.  There should still be enough "veterans" from the prior group of prospects to show the new wave of prospects the way to compete and perform, while also shouldering most of the burden until the new wave of prospects are ready to take over more of the responsibility.

Therefore, don't expect the Indians to just go away, mrkupe. :-)  That's why I don't think the Twins will dominate the division.  Yes, they're probably win some, but don't expect them to dominate the division like the Indians did in the 90s - I don't see that happening, even if their pitching turns out as well as most expect it to.

The main reason for the 4-year rebuilding period recently was because the farm system had become barren because of some ill-advised trades and trades that didn't work out that former GM John Hart made.  That gutted the farm system; now, the farm system is arguably one of the Top 10 in baseball again and allows Shapiro to proceed with his plan for the Indians to contend each year.

That plan of trading players they can't keep and plug in prospects waiting in the wings is probably similar to the Twins to allow them to compete on a year-by-year basis.  That's because they both are considered small markets and both can't afford the premium free agents.

Why I keep mentioning prospects is because the way Minnesota and Cleveland will win is because those prospects will turn into the ML players you are referring to; the Twins and Indians will likely never be able to sign marquee free agents that will put them over the top, such as Derek Jeter, Miguel Cabrera, Alex Rodriguez, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Mark Teixiera, Vladimir Guerrero, etc.

Instead, they need those prospects to turn into ML players - that's how those two franchises will win WS.  Prospects are very important to small market franchises - that's the only real way they can compete for a World Series.  They likely will never be able to spend for marquee free agents to put them over the top.

Regarding the White Sox, they have a solid team, but let's face it, do you really think they are going to win that many one-run games again and lose so few?  I doubt it - many good teams can have a great year where virtually everything goes right for them, and then the following year, with virtually the same cast, far less goes right.  

Therefore, I don't see where the White Sox are going to "steamroll" over everyone like they did in 2005.  They could still win the AL Central, maybe even the WS, but I don't see them dominating in the same fashion as they did in 2005.  That's why I think they will win fewer than 99 games in 2006, even with the additions of Thome and Vazquez.  Just my 2 cents on that! :-)

Regarding the White Sox, some of their players did perform less in 2005 than in 2004 - in other words, they could rebound.  I think that also applies to Indians pitcher, Jake Westbrook.  He had a much better 2004 than 2005 and most of the stats suggest he was one of the unluckiest pitchers in 2005 - his record and ERA should have been much better.  An argument could even be made for Boone, Broussard, and Blake to rebound after horrendous 2005s for each of them; none of them were THAT bad in prior seasons.

In other words, that situation you refer to applies to virtually all teams, including the Indians.  

Regarding Buehrle, you're right - he did pitch a great game in his second postseason start.  I didn't mean to overlook that.  :-)

However, my main point is that Buehrle is a bit more erratic in terms of performance than the great aces like a Santana - Santana is on virtually every time out - if a guy like Buehrle falters, it's not always possible for his team to come back, even if he only gave up 4 R in 7 IP, which is not a quality start.  Which is why Buehrle is a #2 in my book, not a #1.

I agree on McCarthy - I think he has the potential to be a very good #3 or even a solid #2, similar to Sowers and Baker.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread to pedrophile, the reason why Williams would trade an arguably better CF prospect than Brian Anderson in Chris Young for Vazquez when he had McCarthy waiting in the wings, and probably McCarthy could outdo Vazquez now, baffles me and makes me think it's not a good trade for the White Sox.

Just my 2 cents on that trade. :-)

Overall, I think the Indians and Twins are similar in terms of their organizational philosophies, their drafting philosophies, their determination of which free agents to pursue, etc.  That's why they've had lengthy runs of winning this division.

Therefore, I wouldn't underestimate the Indians' farm system or overestimate the Twins' ability to dominate the division - I don't see where the Twins are going to dominate the Indians like the Indians did in the 90s or even where the Twins did from 2002-2004.  I think it will be very close and may even waver from year to year on who wins the AL Central.

Just my 20 cents. :-)  (Consider it the expanded weekend edition! LOL! :-)

Take care and have a great weekend!