White Sox deal Vazquez to Atlanta?
by sdbaseballfan on Dec 2, 2008 6:42 PM EST
Email
PrintUpdated: December 2, 2008, 6:19 PM ET
Right-handed pitcher Javier Vazquez has been told he's headed from the Chicago White Sox to the Atlanta Braves in a deal which is likely to be finalized on Wednesday.
Vazquez is flying to Atlanta on Wednesday morning for a physical.
A baseball source told ESPN's Peter Gammons that the deal will include four other players, including reliever Boone Logan, who would also go from the White Sox to the Braves.
Among the players expected to go from Atlanta to the Chicago organization are Jo-Jo Reyes, Brett Lillibridge and another top prospect.
Vazquez, 32, was 12-16 last season for the White Sox with a 4.67 ERA in 33 starts. He struck out 200 batters in 208 1/3 innings.
Logan, a left-handed reliever, was 4-4 with a 5.70 ERA out of the White Sox bullpen last year. He had a 2-3 record in 55 appearances.
Reyes was 3-11 with a 5.81 ERA last season for the Braves. He started 22 games.
Lillibridge appeared in 90 games at Triple-A Richmond in the Braves organization. He hit .220 with four home runs and 39 RBIs.
119 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
FTA:
Among the players expected to go from Atlanta to the Chicago organization are Jo-Jo Reyes, Brett Lillibridge and another top prospect.
The way that’s phrased implies that Reyes and Lillibridge are even something remotely resembling top prospects.
I hope Chicago got a pretty good third player here.
Update from Rosenthal
5:34pm: Rosenthal says an announcement could come Wednesday or Thursday. He says Lillibridge is in the deal along with a young starter, but it’s not Reyes. Additionally, highly regarded catcher Tyler Flowers might be the third prospect (which would improve the trade quite a bit for the Sox). Baseball Prospectus’ Kevin Goldstein says Flowers profiles as an offense-first catcher, but there are questions about his ability to stay behind the plate.
by sdbaseballfan on Dec 2, 2008 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
This update is very confusing and, as a Braves fan, disheartening. To send Flowers and an arm that isn’t Reyes (meaning it could be someone better than Reyes) for Vazquez seems like a very bad move to me. I thought Lillibridge/Reyes seemed low depending on the 3rd name but Flowers + 2 prospects seems way to high. Braves say they want to slot 2 guys ahead of Jurrjens and I’m not sure Vazquez fits that bill so am really confused by that update.
well
They aren’t players remotely resembling top prospects.
Reyes is an interesting young lefty with the arm and stuff to be a good MLB pitcher but he is no safe bet to be anything either. Lillibridge is a utility IF, maybe a fringe starter at SS or 2b.
by nms on Dec 2, 2008 7:19 PM EST up reply actions
I have to say
Considering that the WS just made the playoffs, Kenny is certainly doing an excellent job of dismantling a contender. I can’t tell if this is just a really bad rebuilding, or if he actually genuinely believes he’s improving his team with these moves.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Kenny's done
some goofey shit in the past – but he has a pretty good track record with how it turns out most of the time.
FWIW
Robothal says that Jo Jo Reyes was talked about but ISNT in the trade
Vazquez's
FIP the last three years: 3.74 3.80 3.86 while striking out 184 213 and 200.
If you’re a braves fan and you don’t like this deal, f**k you.
Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.
When someone continually underperformes his FIP year in and year out (Only 1 of the last 5 seasons he’s had an ERA below 4.42), it’s pretty obvious that it’s not bad luck or a statistical oddity anymore, but rather there is something tangible that is preventing him from pitching up to expectations……(Probably his mediocre WHIP and extremely high HR rates)
Now getting him into the NL in a pitchers park should help him some, but somehow I doubt he pitches below a 4 ERA next season. Truth is the Braves paid a pretty penny for an average pitcher (Career 105 ERA+)
by adropofvenom on Dec 3, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions
+1
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 3, 2008 12:54 AM EST up reply actions
Or...
There is something wrong with using FIP as a measurement for him.
Recently, I’ve been looking at tRA as a possible alternative to FIP and xFIP (not just for Javy, but in general), and, I gotta say, it’s possible it’s a better measurement. Take it for a spin and see what you think. I’m not 100% sold yet, but I’m keeping an open mind.
Start here:
http://ussmariner.com/2006/08/29/evaluating-pitcher-talent/
And here:
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2008/6/23/557089/the-big-tra-post
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
using any one of those
as a rock stand on is going to give one some misleading results
Your comment
Makes no sense. I never said to use anything as a rock stand, whatever that means.
I offered another possible measurement, but I did not suggest abandoning FIP or xFIP.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
er
I meant “a rock TO stand on”.
Point being, looking at just the trendy pitching stats, whether they be FIP. xFIP or tRA is going to give you some misleading ideas sometimes if you give them too much credit.
They are interesting, they are hardly definitive.
by nms on Dec 4, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
Perhaps...
That pitcher pitches for a crappy defensive team in a park ill-suited for his skills? Not saying that is the case here, but there are other explanations beyond a pitcher just being inexplicably shitty.
a career 105+
is ABOVE-average, and that if before giving the guy credit for eating lots of innigns
This and the Swisher trade
seem to be pointing towards Reinsdorf telling Kenny to lower the payroll…
I like what they got in this deal… not so much in the Swisher trade…
extra money to go after
hudson, furcal, etc
by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 2, 2008 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
they are hoarding a lot of minor league infielders to also be signing FA infielders.
Cashing checks and having sex.
i think it's okay depending on who the other 2 are
Vazquez has long been a guy who looked better statistically, but still, he’s a solid middle of the rotation “3” guy who gives you innings, flashes of top performance and bouts of inconsistency. The Braves wanted 2 arms, and the only FA that seemed possible in the upper levels was Burnett, and even Burnett was a slim shot. This gives them some leverage against Towers now if they revisit the Peavy situation.
You gotta give up something to get something. Flowers is good, but unless he improves his glove, he’s a slugging first base prospect. Valuable, but not untouchable unless he’s elite, and I don’t know if people considered Tyler elite yet. I’ve long felt Brent Lillibridge was overrated and an util at best. He’ll get a shot to prove people wrong, as I think he’ll be given a chance to win the middle infield opening, although Betemit may have a shot (although both will be holding the position for Gordon, if he develops).
If one of the remaining two slots is filled by good value, then this is a bad deal. I’m wondering if it’ll be something like Morton and a fringe piece to round things out.
Braves got rapped in the deal
They trade Flowers, Lillibridge, Gilmore, and another prospect for a #4 starter. I hope Ted Turner buys back the Braves and cans Wren’s ass like Baltimore did. This is a fucking terrible deal and it could be worse than the Bedard deal if Flowers is another Konerko and if Gilmore becomes a very good 3rd baseman.
Where'd those players come from?
FWIW, I like this trade for the Braves if they don’t give up Flowers. And I think Vasquez is at least a #3- not to get drawn into the debate above, but I think that’s a reasonable baseline to put him at.
really?
you like getting a stud pitcher for nothing, that’s a stretch to put that out there…i love prospects, i do, but there is this other part of the game, it’s called doing something on the field in the major leagues at some point prospects and suspects (lillibridge, etc) have to be traded to get what you need to win in the REAL GAME
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 3, 2008 4:16 AM EST up reply actions
No
I mean trade another good prospect, or two slightly lesser prospects, instead of dealing Flowers.
What I mean is swap out Flowers for a young pitcher- I think the Braves should have retained him. He was a powerful trade chip on his own.
Hahaha
Braves doesn’t like a Braves deal… again.
Vazquez is a rubber armed #2/#3. You got him at a very reasonable price – a better bang for the buck than Peavy would have been.
no way slurve
he’s not a #2 starter no matter how you slice it. his stuff is probably that of a #2/#3 but his performance is not even close. the guy is a classic underachiever with absolutely no nutsack.
i’m not saying he won’t/can’t perform better going back to the nl and he may be a decent deal dollars wise but there’s no way he’s a better bang for the buck than peavy is. no way, no chance, no idea where you’re coming from on this one.
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Dec 3, 2008 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
Well
they gave up lesser prospects for Vazquez, so that’s a plus. Vazquez is only signed for 2 years and $23M, so while the salary for those two years matches up with Peavy’s, you’re not on the hook for $33M minimum after 2010 or possibly $55M if the option is picked up. Lower risk on the shorter deal. Less risk, keep the better prospects, what’s not to like here?
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
Really
How about if I slice it dis-a-way…
He was #15 on BP’s VORP list in 2007. The goods are there, he had an off year in 2008 and I think a change of scenery (and I HATE that cliche) will do him some good. For what they’re giving up and the low risk / short term contract status – he’s a bargain IMO.
VORP
is not a predictive stat for pitchers. It’s basically RA * Innings pitched, times a constant that aligns it roughly with the 10 runs = 1 win calculation. Everything that’s wrong with non-defense independent pitching metrics is also wrong with VORP, and the BP guys will be the first to admit it.
That said, it’s tough to believe that Vazquez isn’t a better pitcher than his career ERA would indicate.
OK then...
An AL pitcher who pitches half his games in the US Cellular and posts a line of 3.74 ERA 1.14 WHIP with a K per IP in 216 innings is FIRMLY in #2/#3 territory.
That is one year in the last 5
4 of his other 5 years have been mediocre at best. Last year he was truly terrible after a hot start.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 3, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
What are we using
to define mediocre? And what are we looking at to determine if he is/was or not? If you’re going by ERA and W/L records, I’ll give you mediocre and move on. But I’d like to think I know you a little better than that by reading your posts day in and day out. So really, what are you basing this on? His peripherals are all very good every year except his failed season in NY. We’re talking about a guy averaging nearly 8.35K/9, 2.33BB/9, 8.72H/9, 1.22HR/9 and a WHIP of 1.23 over the last 6 years, 4 of which were spent in big time pitchers parks in AZ and Chicago. While he did pitch poorly, he was still pretty much league average at worst, depending what stats you want to use.
I’m curious, what are you using to determine he’s been mediocre at best, because I just don’t see it.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
I agree that peripherals matter however......
When it comes down to a guy having ERA’s over 4.42 in 4 of the last 5 years, I think it is time we start looking past his peripherals. FIPs and tRA are great but the fact remains that the pitcher’s job is to prevent runs. Vazquez hasn’t done that with any degree of success in 4 of the last 5 seasons. While usually I would look at peripherals, I think 5 seasons gives us a fairly fair assesment when looking at his ERA. Vaz has all the talent in the world, unfortunately he doesn’t have the mental wherewithal to get it done when it matters. He is a number 3-4 starter with number 1-2 talent.
People keep using his home/road splits as an excuse but here is the reality over the last 5 years:
2008:
Home – 4.25
Away – 5.10
2007:
Home – 3.57
Away – 3.92
2006:
Home – 4.72
Away – 4.96
2005:
Home – 4.47
Away – 4.39
2004:
Home – 4.13
Away – 5.79
If you look at the evidence he has done better at home in 3 of the last 5 years. In 2 of those years he was SIGNIFICANTLY better. In the two years he was better on the road, it was by a very small amount. The excuse that he is being hampered by his ballpark doesn’t appear to hold any water.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 3, 2008 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
So
the FIP and tRA that backup his peripherals should be tossed aside because his ERA was over 4.42? The FIP and tRA show that his league averagish ERA isn’t all on his shoulders. Yes, pitchers are supposed to prevent runs. But if the defense behind allows extra baserunners and/or runs to score that’s on him? Sorry, if that’s your sole reasoning for Vazquez to be considered “mediocre at best”, I think you’re all wet.
Thanks for explaining why you feel that way though, I do appreciate that.
"So's your mom"-David Sloane
this is faulty analysis
1. park factors matter regardless of a guy’s home/road splits. if a guy is performing well in a tough environment, it doesn’t mean that the environment isn’t tough. even if all parks were identical, both pitchers and hitters perform better at home.
2. there is sound reason to believe that vazquez was particularly ill-suited to pitching for the chisox. he’s a flyball pitcher who pitches a ton of innings in a very homer-friendly park, and the outfield defense behind him has been pretty bad except when they were playing brian anderson in 2006. at times last year it was quentin, swisher, and dye. not a lot of range in that group.
3. i read through this entire damn thread and i don’t think anybody was using home/road splits as an excuse. what i would like to do is use the fact that vazquez had a crappy home park as an excuse. i don’t care about the splits; i do care about the park factor.
having said all that, yes, some pitchers are worse than their peripherals because they become less effective when men are on base. whether you want to ascribe it to mental problems, a lack of testicular fortitude, or merely a mechanical problem pitching from the stretch, it’s certainly an established phenomenon.
vazquez does seem to be one of those guys, but i still think he’ll be good for atlanta. you take that 200 innings of 4.7 ERA and adjust it for league, park, defense, and perhaps manager (he didn’t seem to be a good fit with ozzie), and suddenly you’re looking at (yes) a #2 starter.
Truly Terrible:
Javier Vazquez, post-ASB:
87.1IP 27BB:83K 1.26WHIP 4.74ERA
If ERA is your stat of choice, Javier Vazquez was truly terrible after a hot start last year.
If that’s the case, you probably also think it’s Vazquez’s fault that 33% of his balls-in-play dropped for hits (as a flyball pitcher no less), and 32% of his baserunners scored (despite 1/3 of his outs coming via a strikeout).
I think that anyone who thinks Javier Vazquez is only an average pitcher is Truly Terrible at player evaluation.
It is his fault that he averages 29 HR given up per year over the last 5 seasons
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 3, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
And over the last three years...
in one of the most HR-friendly parks in the majors, he’s averaged 26, the same number as Johan Santana. Does any of that matter? Not really.
In ‘04 and ’05, Vazquez had HR/F of 12.5% and 16.3%, which skewed your average. Of course, if you’re not a fan of Javier Vazquez, those numbers probably mean nothing to you anyway.
Wasn't he also
dealing with some nagging little injuries last year? I seem to remember hearing some things about that, but don’t remember…
Fearless 2009 Stats Projection
Details are in a reply above:
33 Starts, 200 IP, 233 K, 4.35 ERA, 1.135 WHIP
Where does that guy rank in a rotation? Is he still mediocre?
WTF?
how do people keep insisting on this nonsense. Between 2000 and 2008 he has had exactly one below-average year.
by nms on Dec 4, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
Last 5 seasons ERA+
2004 – 92
2005 – 100
2006 – 98
2007 – 127
2008 – 98
Also his ERA has been higher then the league ERA in 3 of the last 5 years. Vazquez has talent and peripherals but the numbers don’t back up the claims of his greatness. The fact that his own manager questioned his abilities in pressure situations should tell you something:
‘’He hasn’t been [a big-game pitcher], that’s the bottom line.’’
Should Vazquez be considered a top 1-2 starter judging by his peripherals? Definitely. Should he be considered a top 1-2 starter judging by his performance? No.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 4, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
ERA+
The average ERA+ for a starter is something like 95 (relievers are skewing the overall league average). Those numbers support nms’ claim, since 2004 would be the only below average year you listed, and just barely at that.
+1
the numbers don’t back up the claims of his greatness.
No, but they do back up a claim of “pretty-goodness”
Which is why I stated he is a #3-4 starter as opposed to a #1-2 starter.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Dec 5, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
All this blather about #2/#3 or #3/#4 misses the point
Pitchers don’t fall into these categories. The category Vazquez falls into is that of the pitcher who will throw 200 innings of league-average or better ball. The key is they’re getting a guy who will give them 200 not-awful innings, not that they’re getting a “stopper” or whatever. 200 innings is HUGE for the Braves. It takes pressure off the ‘pen and off the young starters. That’s why it’s a good deal.
Dave O'Brien says this
Flowers, Lill. Gilmore and Santos Rodriguez.
scout.com
Santos Rodriguez 45 K’s 29 IP age 20.
MLBtraderumors is reporting it
7:42pm: O’Brien believes Chicago’s return to be Flowers, Lillibridge, third baseman Jon Gilmore, and pitcher Santos Rodriguez.
dominated?
i don’t know, that depends on flowers. if he can stay at catcher then i’ll agree with your assessment.
as an aside, you’re right about one thing. cole does rock!
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Dec 3, 2008 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
Not a bad trade...
and it becomes a really good trade, IMO, if the Braves add Burnett and/or the Logan acquisition means they’re no longer planning on committing $4 million per season to their 4th-best reliever (Ohman).
Anyway, Flowers is valuable, but he’s blocked in the Braves’ system and the rest of the package is pretty underwhelming.
Interestingly, this would seem to free up both Reyes and Morton, both obviously major-league-ready, for a Peavy deal…
Flowers could be the next Konerko
he was a catcher, blocked by Piazza.
Yeah, he sure could.
He could also bust, as he’s not played above A-ball and has exactly one good season (and one virtually meaningless AFL season) under his belt.
Exactly
Yet another case of the Braves dealing a hot young prospect for an out-of-favor veteran. I like the move, but that’s mostly because I think moving out of the Cell will help Vasquez tremendously.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
I don't like Vazquez
The guys sucks and I think Morton, Reyes, and Hanson are better. One of the most unclutch pitchers in our lifetime.
You say that...
And then he pitches a CG shutout in his first start in a Braves uni and we get to hear about Javier Vasquez is the second coming of Jesus…
Come on now, you guys just dealt a decent SS prospect, a couple decent but not stellar prospects and Tyler Flowers for (at worst) a #3 who will probably improve a little in the NL. This is a fairly good trade all around.
I agree
And it’s an interesting deal for the White Sox too, who trade a guy who won’t be the final piece of a championship team for a potentially very good young catcher, and a few nice prospects.
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 2, 2008 11:52 PM EST up reply actions
It's definitely a win-win for both teams
Hey, if Kenny Williams is smart, he’ll leave Alexi at 2B, put Lillibridge at SS and he’s got a hell of a defensive middle infield. Even switching Alexi to CF would be useful if he goes after Orlando Hudson or a free agent 2B.
by David Tokarz on Dec 3, 2008 12:51 AM EST up reply actions
Vazquez
Looking at the numbers, Vazquez is pretty clearly a #2.
His tRAs the last three years are 3.57, 3.56, and 3.51, according to Stat Corner. That compares to league tRAs of 5.11, 4.89, and 4.87.
The Braves just got themselves a guy who’s a decent bet to give them 440+ IPs of #2 pitching in 2009/2010, for $11.5M per.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
W-L record suggest a #4
Sure the the tRAs look nice but this guy is one of the most unclutch big game pitchers out there. A #2 starter doesn’t have a career W-L of 129-127.
Win/Loss record
Come on haven’t we progressed out of the dark ages by now?
Even if you still want to be stuck in 1325 a 129-127 record is about as close to .500 as you can get. That’s not a #4 by any means.
Of course win/losses don’t tell you a thing aside from discovering if his teammates helped him out or not.
Win-Loss Record?? Really???
We might as well judge him by the color of his hair.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
if we were to meaninglessly interpret win-loss records for starters
wouldn’t a just above .500 record suggest a #3 starter? i mean if #1s, #2s and #3s all have significantly winning records, and #4s were .500, then do #5s never win? who’s taking all the losses?
Cashing checks and having sex.
never like Vazquez
unclutch, pitches a great 3 innings and folds once the lineup sees him once. Is 32 years old, which is not good. Ask yankee fans about him and they would agree.
Unclutch...
What’s unclutch is how you kep choking at all of these deals. Time and time again, they have held up as decent deals for the Braves. They’re mid-level prospects – quit acting like they just traded BA’s all-time top ten can’t miss HOF’ers. Seriously.
Except for the Teixera deal
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 3, 2008 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
Wouldn't say that
You don’t get a top 5 bat for nothing.. The Braves had him for a year and half then also got some things back when they traded him. Salty has yet to establish himself as an MLB regular, Feliz has taken off – but again has yet to prove himself in the majors, same with Andrus. I remember Bravesin acting like the minor league system was irreparably damaged and how the entire organization was on the verge of crumbling when that deal went down. The minor league system at this time is among the best and the organization as a whole looks quite healthy from here.
At the end of the day – they’re still just prospects – people on a minorleague site over-rate thier value… go figure.
+1
And remember that OMG-the-sky-is-falling deal included the last can’t-miss catching prospect the Braves traded, he of the .700+ MLB OPS (though I think he may breakout next year, if they’d give him 600 ABs).
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
That's the other thing
So what if Salty breaks out? He’s not a catcher long term for any team – and they had McCann blocking him.
Pretty fair trade
if you ask me.
Decent chance it looks bad for the Braves in a couple years… but they got a nice piece they needed signed to a reasonable deal and who is a good fit in Atlanta.
I probably wouldnt have made this trade if I was either GM… but I dont see it as slanted one way or the other… perhaps ChiSox come out slightly ahead, but a lot of that is just gut feelings, to be completely honest…
Interesting deal
I’m not as excited about it for the Braves as I could be, but that’s mostly because I had hoped to get Dye as well as Vazquez. He’d be an excellent fit in LF….
Anyhow, I don’t really mind giving up Flowers. The AFL is the AFL, and while I think he could be a good player, I don’t really think he’s a C.
Gilmore is an interesting prospect (aside: I met his sister, aka Ben Zobrist’s wife at a Durham Bulls game), but a lot of people tear up rookie ball. I have no idea who Santos Rodriguez is, other than having read his scouting report.
So yeah. If the deal is as-reported, I think it’s fine for the Braves. It’s basically Flowers and a couple C+ guys who are lightyears away from the majors.
Peavy
Guess this takes the Braves out of it. At this point it seems he’s going to the Cubs or he’s not traded at all.
Why does this take the Braves out?
None of the players who went to Chicago were ever talked about in a deal for Peavy. I guess you could say losing Lilibridge hurts their depth at SS, but I don’t think a Peavy deal is any more than marginally less likely than it was yesterday.
especially if said peavy deal includes greene
….or the braves have a furcal or orlando cabrera deal in place upon escobar’s deal…i’m honestly quite happy that lillibridge isn’t there as a fallback because i don’t see him as a starter in the majors at short….so having him gone means they’ll have to get a real shortstop to stay in the peavy deal….and they still have plenty of pieces to do a peavy deal….i actually wonder if this makes a peavy deal more likely for them, honestly….
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
i think
that the braves may revisit it, but the vazquez trade gives them a little leverage. They went into the offseason wanting to add two guys to the top of the rotation. The only fa that they seem to have a shot with that fills that would be Burnett, and I don’t think the chances are all that great for Atlanta there.
i think vazquez is a good candidate to have a great year, either or both 2009 and 2010.
he’s consistently underperformed several projections, and he’s moving to the NL, and a much better pitcher’s park. if he were to actually see results that reflected his peripherals i could see him being near the NL lead in all the prime sportswriter categories: wins, ip, k, era.
Cashing checks and having sex.
Vazquez is a pitcher with a lot of talent.
The Braves will love him unless they need him to pitch well in meaningful games.
This is very well known to Yankee and White Sox fans and is not said with any malice. The guy is being traded for that exact reason.
Yankee fans know that he couldn’t handle the pressure of New York which is why the Mets were reluctant to trade for him.
After the Sox WON THE WORLD SERIES in 2005 their pitchers were tired for 2006 so Kenny traded for Vazquez to pick up the slack. He didn’t. The Sox won 90 games but if he had pitched well they probably would’ve gone back to the playoffs.
In 2007 the Sox started out well and then had a rash of injuries and tanked in the 2nd half finishing with 72 wins. This was VAZQUEZ BEST YEAR! He was lights out in the 2nd half after the Sox were out of the race.
2008- 1st half Javy was ok. Sox were in 1st place. August and September the races got real tight. Vazquez sucked. He was so bad the Sox wouldn’t pitch him in the playoffs.
He’s a guy with a great arm and a messed up head but he’s not a kid anymore and if he hasn’t figured things out by now – he won’t. He’ll be 33. The Braves got themselves an expensive 4th starter.
I don’t know that they gave up much for him?
I've never bought this...
the “he’s not a big-game player” argument. I’m sure such a creature exists, but I’ve never seen a case of it where there was enough of a sample for it to be anything but noise. It smells too much like a lazy sportswriter’s answer.
And, by the way, if Javier Vazquez is your fourth-best pitcher, you might as well start printing World Series tickets. That’d be a hell of a rotation.
Yeah
I love how everyone jumps all over a guy who over overperforms his FIP as a guy who’s due for regression, but when he underperforms for a few years in a row, he has a headcase and has no man equipment.
LOL.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
it doesn't mean he is a headcase
but it is worth considering that there is probably something FIP, or something else, is missing. It doesn’t have to be testicle related. He could just be not all that good,,,,, or at least simply not as good as some stats insist he should be
by nms on Dec 4, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
The whole point
of fielding-independent stats is to measure how good he actually is. It’s not predictive, and it’s not insisting anything.
It assesses the pitcher’s actual, individual performance (without the bias that comes from luck, team defense, park factors, etc.).
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
sure but
the creature of “pitcher whose true talent isn’t close to what FIP or tRA says it should be” definately exists. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with “being a big-time player,” but saying that a guy who can’t prevent runs like his peripherals say he should be able is just unlucky or due for a breakout is a lazy stathead’s answer as much as “being big-time” is a lazy sportswriter’s answer.
by nms on Dec 4, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Really?
Why don’t you point out for us, since this is a prospect website, a prospect you feel will consistently underperform his FIP?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Ozzie had nothing to do with it
His constant public slagging of Vazquez in the media wasn’t exactly classy and probably didn’t help him. Not everyone responds well to that treatment. Especially considering they were riding him hard through September and bringing him back on short rest, they weren’t exactly setting him up for success.
Braves
I don’t see how this isn’t a good risk for them to take. As has been noted in many of the comments here, Vazquez has the peripherals of a good-to-excellent pitcher without the ERA results, save for 2007 when his ERA looked like he was a borderline #1 starter (ERA+ = 127). Most likely, they get a slightly better than average starter with the potential to masquerade as a borderline #1 in a particular year for 4 guys they don’t need.
Yes, Flowers has a lot of potential with the bat. But, is he a C? Even if he is, he’s not replacing McCann anytime soon. Mostly likely, he ends up a 1B, and they have Freddie Freeman there, who is arguably just as good or even better with the bat than Flowers. Maybe Lillibridge bounces back, but they’ve got Escobar and Kelly Johnson, so there’s really no need there, either. The other 2 guys have some ability, but they are so far away, it’s really tough to gauge.
If the Braves can add a FA SP and Tommy Hanson to the rotation, and get some OF help, they might actually be pretty good this year.
Argument
Know that I’m probably just counter-arguing to be difficult, but I think the Flowers stuff misses the point a bit. It’s true that Flowers probably didn’t have a huge future with the Braves (although injuries, etc. sometimes have a way of solving blocking issues). However, most of the criticism here has been of the “Is that the best you could get for Flowers?” variety.
A good GM finds the team from whom to extract maximum value for his trade pieces, right? Ultimately, then, I think the deal turns on Vazquez’ value, not what Flowers’s value would have been with the Braves.
It’s great to trade from depth, and I get that point. However, I think looking at this from the prospect side sort of glances off the main criticism of the deal.
(Although I myself love the deal, I don’t think you can get there without a view that Vazquez is a good bet to perform as a durable #2/#3 for the Braves.)
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
I see your point
I agree to an extent… sure, if you could get Peavy in a similar deal including Flowers, of course you do it. Maybe you search a little harder to find the GM that thinks Flowers is Mike Piazza and he’ll give you a #1 SP, but I doubt that GM exists.
I think it comes down to two things. One is that I think Vazquez is a better pitcher than he’s getting credit for being and I like his chances to succeed in Atlanta. Secondly, I just think that it is extremely debatable about how valuable Flowers actually is. If he’s just a 1B, his value takes a major hit and getting an above average major league SP is more than worth it.
We’ll see in a few years how it plays out. For now, I like the Braves dealing from their minor league depth to try and build themselves back into contention in a pretty weak league.
by jc3 on Dec 5, 2008 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
Just a note - Flowers video views skyrocketed Dec 3.
FWIW.
Only AFL AB I recorded of Flowers was a strike three looking.
Dec 1 – 1 view
Dec 2 – 69
Dec 3 – 1068
Dec 4 – 95
Dec 5 – 30
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
