White Sox deal Vazquez to Atlanta?

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.

by DrunkIrish on Dec 2, 2008 6:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm actually thinking

the opposite.

Getting a front/mid rotation starter and maybe a LOOGY for Flowers and a couple question marks sounds great to me.

by nms on Dec 2, 2008 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Except that he isn’t a front line starter and you can find a LOGGY almost anywhere.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

explain how javier vazquez is not a #2 starter.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with Larry

Look at Vazquez’s numbers and peripherals and you will be surprised what you see, jfish.

Vazquez might be the most underappreciated starter in baseball. He has racked up 200+ strikeouts in each of the last two seasons, has a solid K/BB ratio and has logged 200+ IP in eight of the last nine years.

by sdbaseballfan on Dec 2, 2008 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

"So's your mom"-David Sloane

by gatling on Dec 2, 2008 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you've got to be kidding

how about the fact that in his last 6 seasons hes had an era below 4.42 only once. yes, he always pitches about 200 innings which is valuable but how valuable can it be when they’re not great innings? maybe valuable as a #4 but clearly hes not a #2. and i don’t care about peripherals if he consistently gets hit every year, if you can’t get your era below 4.5 you’re not even a #3.

the most i’ll give you is that hes a league average pitcher who you can count on for innings with absolutely NO guts.

by robcast23 on Dec 2, 2008 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well ERA isn’t the best stat to use. I think he is going to be a good, solid pitcher but I just think we gave up to much to get someone I’m not sure fits what Wren said he wants.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that always has been the knock on him. unclear why.

of course, statistical variance suggests that one should expect there to be a pitcher like vazquez who consistently underperforms his expected ERA simply on the basis of luck. of course, maybe he does have NO guts. i’m guessing the braves’ physical will reveal the existence or nonexistence of that.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That is

nonsense.

A guy under-performing his “expected” ERA year after year is not based “simply on luck”.
The idea that you can boil pitching down to simply peripheral stats has always been wrong and completely silly.

by nms on Dec 2, 2008 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why can't it be?

never heard of statistical outliers? sure, it’s unlikely. and i won’t pretend that it certainly is a reason, let alone the sole reason. but it’s also certainly not outside the realm of random variance, especially in the sample size of pitchers major league baseball has.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

'statistical outliers'

I would say the 1 good year in the last 6 years is the ‘statistical outlier’. Some guys have all the peripherals in the world but not the proper mental approach to get the job done.

"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 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That should be '1 good year in the last 5 years'

"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 2:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I think most believe his penchant for allowing HRs results in traditional pitching stats that arent in line with his other component factors. He’s still giving up those HRs and they still count – but he’s a very good pitcher with a flaw holding him back (he’s still very good despite that mind you) and there is some reason to believe the flaw (HRs) is approach/concentration based.

by alskor on Dec 2, 2008 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that and his odd ability to pitch fine prior to and after the sixth.

but not in the sixth.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

his problem

is that when things are going well, he’s awesome. when he hits a bump in the road, he falls apart. i’ve been a big white sox fan since 1993 and have seen almost all their home games in person the last three years.
i don’t know how many times i’ve seen javy cruise through 4 innings with a bunch of k’s and 1-2 base runners, then allow a couple bloop singles, then a double, then a homer and suddenly a 2-0 lead leads to a 2-5 deficit.
If you look at his his career, his two best seasons were two years ago with the sox and about 5 years ago with montreal. the similarity in both years was that the teams he played for where out of the playoff race very early and there was little to no pressure on him.
the fact is, he’s a guy that has all the tools for success, yet can’t handle adversity and pressure.
that being said, i still think he’s a good addition for what he’s being paid, especially compared to some of the FA deals given out to pitchers the last couple of years.

p.s. i really hope tyler flowers is included in that deal!

by joltinjoe on Dec 2, 2008 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

nms, agreed

by FishHead on Dec 2, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There are, what, 100 or so regular MLB starters?

Not counting the fringey guys who come and go at the back end.

Take 100 guys and the odds that there will be one of them who underperforms his FIP for the next 6 years in a row are very high— about 80%.

This is based on similar principles as a well-known (and now highly illegal) scam in which a stockbroker sends out “tips” to a thousand people, telling 500 to buy a stock and the other 500 to sell it. If it goes up, he writes off the 500 he told to sell, then sends “tips” to 250 to buy another stock and 250 to sell it. Repeat this 3 more times and you have 30 or so people who are impressed with your genius (you picked five stocks right in a row!) who will pay you lots of money.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 3, 2008 3:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've heard this with

sports betting.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Dec 3, 2008 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jesus Christ, you've only been watching his games for the past three years

maybe you could make an objective statement about his ability to perform under pressure, hrrm?

by Daniel Berlyn on Dec 2, 2008 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well

the only years he has had where he has had an ERA+ worse than that of an average SP are 98, 99 and 2004. So it seems pretty obvious to me that a guy throwing 220 IP of average (and sometimes well above) innings is easily a #3.
I don’t really see any logical case that he isn’t

by nms on Dec 2, 2008 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

vazquez has no sack. both ozzie & williams couldn’t wait to unload his ass. he sucked in the bronx as well. things may get better for him going to the nl but he’s a #4 starter at best and the braves better hope they never have to relt on him to come up big in a pressure situation, chances are he won’t.

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 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

'cause everyone knows, it's sack that keeps runs off the board!

by mraver on Dec 5, 2008 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What does that matter if he is giving up hits and runs? His numbers have fell over the years since he left the Expos. At 10 mill a year and giving up Flowers and possibly another prospect or 2 of some value seems like to much to me.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

vazquez' value certainly exceeds the amount he's paid.

whether he’s worth what is being given up, well, i dunno. i’ll wait to form an opinion until i know what the package is. (you may also wish to chalk up some of that numbers falling due to him being in the tougher league and a hitters park)

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

:D

Every single pitcher that goes from the AL to the NL has a bunch of people say “oh his numbers are instantly going to improve across the board” and I’m pretty sick of hearing it. If you feel that way, fine but he is going to have to show me on the field first. If you want to say a #3 in the AL is a #1/#2 in the NL fine but I’m not buying it.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ted Lilly

is one really good example.

Todd Wellemeyer another.

Dan Haren is another.

Plenty more to go around.

Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.

by wildthang on Dec 2, 2008 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Name every pitcher that has ever switched leagues and look up the end results. If at leats 60% of them had that happen then I’ll believe you but don’t just sit here and pick out a few names that support your assumption.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 7:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i could be wrong on this.

but hasn’t this been pretty well studied and confirmed? i’m not going to pretend the effect is massive but there were, as i recall, articles at the HBT on this and probably other places.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Todd Wellemeyer?

Came up through the Cubs system

by slurve on Dec 2, 2008 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but technically

He came from KC to Stl. He’s a bad example though.

by guru4u on Dec 2, 2008 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i wasn't sure which numbers you were talking about.

ERA should be expected to go down. strikeouts should go up. so on. not sure why this would be controversial.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

AL to NL

Well, we can do a conservative estimate on what his stats will be based on his recent consistency with himself and the AL at large. Looking at ERA+ over the last 4 years I think we all can agree that Vazquez is at least league average pitcher in ERA over the last four years. The difference in league average ERA between the AL and the NL is consistently 0.3, with the NL being lower. Additionally, being a strikeout pitcher facing a Pitcher on average of twice a game should allow him to K 50% of those pitchers which increases his K’s by approximately 1/game and consequently drops his W+H by approximately 1/game. His past performance shows that he consistently makes 33 starts per year, K’s 200, pitches 200 innings and has at worst a 1.3 WHIP in the AL. Using the above numbers and his own stats: in the NL he projects out to be 33 starts, 200 IP, 233 K’s, NL Avg. ERA at worst (4.35), WHIP 1.135 . . . what position in the rotation would you project a guy with those numbers into? I think with the extra bad bat in the lineup for teams in the NL that his ERA could drop more as he would have an easier time getting out of few of the mental jams people are talking him getting into than he would in the AL. So yeah, I don’t know enough about the prospects to speculate on whether this was a good deal or not . . . but I saw a bunch of yelling back and forth and no one doing some Javier Vazquez being Javier Vazquez type number-crunching. So I did it. Feel free to yell some more now :-)

by mestifo on Dec 3, 2008 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no

the only consistently powerful offense in the AL central is the white sox, so the division factor is marginal.

and since ’06 his era on the road is half a run higher than at home, so thats out.

by robcast23 on Dec 2, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

looks at the national league

i mean really, look at some of these teams right now, the marlins are trying to lose on purpose, san diego is horrible, the whole west can’t hit a pitcher for that matter, the cards, brewers, astros are all very weak, washington is terrible, you are telling me you don’t think a pitcher would do better against that than against the AL

by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 3, 2008 4:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

The White Sox… because the Tigers have such a crappy offense.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Dec 3, 2008 9:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And

returning to the NL will most likely result in a decrease in H/9 and BB/9 while his K/9 will likely be at least stable if not increase. He’s pretty easily a #2 in the NL.

"So's your mom"-David Sloane

by gatling on Dec 2, 2008 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

/me points to the post above

You feel so strongly you posted his numbers will go up just moving to the NL twice in 1 minute. :D

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nvm that post, 2 different people :p

I’m still not buying a move from the AL to the NL instantly means shave .5 off their ERA, .2 off their WHIP and decrease their BB rate and increase their K rate significantly with no other changes.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nope, but nice try. Only one post.

If you don’t think that facing a pitcher twice a game has a positive impact on a pitcher vs. having to face a DH twice a game, I don’t know what to tell you.

"So's your mom"-David Sloane

by gatling on Dec 2, 2008 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Positive, yes

As much of an impact as all the fans always say, no

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 7:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm confused then about which part of my statement it is that you're quibbling.

you may also wish to chalk up some of that numbers falling due to him being in the tougher league and a hitters park

i don’t see much radical in there.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll give you a bit of an improvement but he needs a good bit of an improvement to be a true front line starter in my opinion. Just because you move to the NL from the NL doesn’t make #3/#4 pitchers #1/#2 pitchers.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

okay.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't believe

anyone has given a projected change in the numbers, but I think it’s extremely short sighted on your part to collectively dismiss the difference in the two leagues. 12 pitchers struck out 160 or more batters in 2008 in AL, 19 pitchers did it in the NL. If Vazquez pitches 208 innings again in 2009 for the Braves, I bet he K’s more than 200 people, so that number is likely to rise. Not facing a DH should lead to fewer hits and runs allowed. How much of a difference will that be? Well, I don’t know, but let’s say that Vazquez faced a DH 60 times last year and they collectively hit .260 on the year. Not too far fetched right? Well, replace that with pitchers hitting say, .160 and he’s no longer averaging a hit per inning or better. Same thing with the walks. I don’t know how many times he walked a DH, but it’s got to be many times more than he will a pitcher.

So the stats that you point to as being a problem for him shouldn’t be an issue in the NL really. Especially when his K rate was still over 8.5K/9 and his walk rate was only 2.64BB/9, not exactly a bad number by any means. Yeah, he had a bad year in 2008 if you look at things like ERA, but he still did all the important things well. I think this is a much better idea for Atlanta than throwing $16M+ a year at AJ Burnett.

"So's your mom"-David Sloane

by gatling on Dec 2, 2008 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

since '06

his 5 highest era’s vs. specific opponents are:

HOU
NYY
PIT
TEX
CHC
MIN
PHI

i understand the NL teams have smaller sample sizes but by the way you make it sound he should be crushing pittsburgh and houston.

by robcast23 on Dec 2, 2008 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sample size. you said it yourself.

Cashing checks and having sex.

by MarketMaker on Dec 3, 2008 4:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

His walk rate rose, his K rate fell and he gave up more than 1 hit per inning. He once was a front line starter but I’m not sure that is the case anymore. Don’t get me wrong, he will give us 200 IP more than likely and be solid but I don’t think he should be slotted in front of Jurrjens.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

MLB.com is saying the Sox get 4 players now. Every time there is an update it sounds like the Sox are getting more. :/

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by PaulThomas on Dec 2, 2008 6:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

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.

by slurve on Dec 2, 2008 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW

Robothal says that Jo Jo Reyes was talked about but ISNT in the trade

by nms on Dec 2, 2008 7:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Morton?

He may be the pitcher…

by NYSOX on Dec 2, 2008 8:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by wildthang on Dec 2, 2008 8:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ahh classy. No reason to pay any attention to you on this website anymore.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

there is increasingly scant reason

to pay attention to this website at all anymore.

The discourse has been constantly shifting towards that of the realm of YouTube comments. Its a shame

by nms on Dec 2, 2008 8:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well it goes through phases but John usually does a decent job. He is busy with the book so posters know they have more room to be disrespectful and get away with it. I still enjoy reading most discussions but I agree that there aren’t as many topics that I really enjoy reading these days and that the environment overall has taken a turn for the worse.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 8:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well seriously

its a brilliant trade for the braves. I would have fought like hell to be in on this.

And i was going for more of the Talladega Nights “if you don’t chew big red, F**k you”. Not an actual F bomb.

Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.

by wildthang on Dec 2, 2008 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well then my apoligies but I still don’t think it’s some amazing steal of a deal that Braves fans should be praising Wren for w/o seeing some results first. If Vazquez and Flowers were to remain on their current paths, we lose this in my opinion. Sure Flowers has a ways to go before being a MLB contributer but I just don’t think Vazquez is the pitcher he once was or as good as some are making him out to be in this thread. We will find out, it seems official pending a physical whatever the deal is.

by jfish26101 on Dec 2, 2008 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Vazquez

Has been remarkably consistent the last 3 years, with tRAs of 3.57, 3.56, and 3.51.

He is a very fine pitcher.

Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball

by Yakker on Dec 2, 2008 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

+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 0 recs

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

by Yakker on Dec 3, 2008 1:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

using any one of those

as a rock stand on is going to give one some misleading results

by nms on Dec 3, 2008 11:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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

by Yakker on Dec 3, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

Fine

What would you do?

And please don’t say ERA, W-L.

Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball

by Yakker on Dec 4, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by aCone419 on Dec 3, 2008 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

I think you hit it on the head. That was exactly the case here.

by alskor on Dec 3, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

a career 105+

is ABOVE-average, and that if before giving the guy credit for eating lots of innigns

by nms on Dec 3, 2008 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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…

by alskor on Dec 2, 2008 8:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

extra money to go after

hudson, furcal, etc

by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 2, 2008 8:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

they are hoarding a lot of minor league infielders to also be signing FA infielders.

Cashing checks and having sex.

by MarketMaker on Dec 3, 2008 4:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by toonsterwu on Dec 2, 2008 8:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

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.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 2, 2008 8:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

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.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Dec 2, 2008 8:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Dec 3, 2008 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

WHERE DID U SEE THIS!!!!

by colerocks on Dec 2, 2008 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by slurve on Dec 2, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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

by gatling on Dec 3, 2008 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and

Less injury concerns (if can you even say that about a pitcher) with Javy.

Yeah, just a terrible deal. THEY SHOULDA GOTT PEAVEY!!!!1 ;-)

Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball

by Yakker on Dec 3, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by slurve on Dec 3, 2008 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by slamcactus on Dec 3, 2008 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by slurve on Dec 3, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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

by gatling on Dec 3, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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

by gatling on Dec 3, 2008 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by jpahk on Dec 3, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by DrunkIrish on Dec 3, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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.

by DrunkIrish on Dec 3, 2008 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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…

by slurve on Dec 3, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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?

by mestifo on Dec 3, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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 0 recs

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.

by aCone419 on Dec 4, 2008 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

the numbers don’t back up the claims of his greatness.

No, but they do back up a claim of “pretty-goodness”

by alskor on Dec 4, 2008 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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.

by mraver on Dec 5, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

where did u see that

by colerocks on Dec 2, 2008 8:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Flowers, Morton, Lillibridge and Gilmore

by Bravesin07 on Dec 2, 2008 9:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dave O'Brien says this

Flowers, Lill. Gilmore and Santos Rodriguez.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 2, 2008 9:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

WHERE ?

by colerocks on Dec 2, 2008 9:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

scout.com

Santos Rodriguez 45 K’s 29 IP age 20.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 2, 2008 9:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

in the GCL...

by aCone419 on Dec 3, 2008 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

MLBtraderumors is reporting it

7:42pm: O’Brien believes Chicago’s return to be Flowers, Lillibridge, third baseman Jon Gilmore, and pitcher Santos Rodriguez.

by Rajah358 on Dec 2, 2008 9:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

the braves were just dominated in this deal

by colerocks on Dec 2, 2008 9:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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…

by vandystu on Dec 2, 2008 9:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You mean major league ready to get shelled?

by Lunkwill Fook on Dec 3, 2008 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Flowers could be the next Konerko

he was a catcher, blocked by Piazza.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 2, 2008 9:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

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.

by vandystu on Dec 2, 2008 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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

by Yakker on Dec 2, 2008 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He could be the next Craig Wilson

He was a catcher, blocked by obesity.

by aCone419 on Dec 3, 2008 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 2, 2008 9:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

wrong,

wrong, wrong, maybe, and maybe

by Daniel Berlyn on Dec 2, 2008 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Dec 2, 2008 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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 demondeaconsbaseball on Dec 3, 2008 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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

by Yakker on Dec 2, 2008 10:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 2, 2008 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by TRanger on Dec 2, 2008 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Win-Loss Record?? Really???

We might as well judge him by the color of his hair.

Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball

by Yakker on Dec 3, 2008 1:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by MarketMaker on Dec 3, 2008 4:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Crappy closers that don't have "calm eyes", obviously

by jibs on Dec 3, 2008 8:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 2, 2008 9:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

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.

by slurve on Dec 2, 2008 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But it's

JON GILMORE!!!!

by mraver on Dec 2, 2008 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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.

by slurve on Dec 3, 2008 6:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+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

by Yakker on Dec 3, 2008 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by slurve on Dec 3, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True

Although 4+ cost-controlled years of a first baseman OPSing at a 900+ clip would be nice too.

Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball

by Yakker on Dec 3, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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…

by alskor on Dec 2, 2008 9:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Santos Rodriguez

Anyone have a decent scouting report on the kid?

Mike Grouse Interview - Rangers' Midwest Cross Checker

by Andy Seiler on Dec 2, 2008 9:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Throws hard

that’s it.

by aCone419 on Dec 3, 2008 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by mraver on Dec 2, 2008 10:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

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.

by uwbadger on Dec 2, 2008 11:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

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.

by mraver on Dec 2, 2008 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by biggentleben on Dec 3, 2008 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by toonsterwu on Dec 3, 2008 5:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by MarketMaker on Dec 3, 2008 4:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

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?

by NLaloosh on Dec 3, 2008 9:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

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.

by DrunkIrish on Dec 3, 2008 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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

by Yakker on Dec 3, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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

by Yakker on Dec 4, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs

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.

by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2008 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by Ophidian on Dec 3, 2008 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by jc3 on Dec 5, 2008 11:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

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

by Yakker on Dec 5, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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 0 recs