Loading ...
Vazquez: Good or Bad?
Written by Rue on December 3, 2008 – 12:34 amWatch out, Braves fans, here comes another sub-standard, past-his-prime, DL-bound pitcher to the Braves lineup. At first, I was excited when I was told about the Javier Vazquez news because I thought it meant we were getting rid of Jo-Jo Reyes once and for all and maybe getting a bit of a veteran. Then I read Vazquez’s stats for the past two seasons and found out that Jo-Jo was, in fact, staying (for now). To say the least, I am not excited – not even a little bit.
Maybe I’m just let down by Vazquez’s 12 and 16 (4.67 ERA) in 2008 and 15-8 (3.74 ERA) in 2007 with recent Peavy and Burnett talks, and the fact that he has been getting progressively worse (and older) over the past few years. Some chalk it up to the White Sox’s hitter-friendly field, but that is not an acceptable excuse when the decline seems somewhat, well, linear. Is Javier Vazquez worth Brent Lillibridge, Jon Gilmore, and Santos Rodriguez? Yes. Is he worth Jo-Jo? Heck, I’ll give you Jo-Jo for less than the Calgary Vipers accepted as a trade for John Odom. But here is my point: is Vazquez worth catching prospect Tyler Flowers? Nope, not with those numbers, and not with the past few years’ decrease in performance. I am not convinced that we have made a good decision on this one.
Peavy in Atlanta would raise some eyebrows and some hopes, but Cub’s pitcher Ryan Dempster trumps Peavy in my book and I wouldn’t mind seeing him step onto Turner Field time and time again. Additionally, shelling out some money for C.C. Sabathia gives us a strong and consistent arm, including a pretty decent bat. Heck, what about Brewer’s pitcher Ben Sheets? With Winter Meetings less than a week away, it’s time to get creative, optimistic, and make some good decisions for the club as a whole. Our needs are obvious, and it’s time for us to step up to the plate.
Tags: Ben Sheets, Brent Lillibridge, C.C. Sabathia, Jake Peavy, Javier Vazquez, John Odom, Jon Gilmore, Ryan Dempster, Santos Rodriguez
Posted in Roster Moves | 25 Comments »
By Jonathan on Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
My biggest issue isn't Vazquez's numbers. It's the fact that he's aging. I'm just really hoping for a decently young pitcher or two this offseason to start building a future rotation around. Yes, Vazquez is only 33 and has a few years left in that arm, but it's just not what I was hopeful for.
Winter Meetings here we come!
By RueGrant on Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
If any of my aforementioned pitchers are gone, I am sorry, I should have researched more, but today i am living in my ideal world that seems to disclude money, done deals, and logical thought.
By Andrew on Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
I'm not sure how his decline has been "linear." His ERA jumped drastically when he moved to the AL, but his 2007 campaign saw a return to his former dominance. This year wasn't great to him, but he still gave the White Sox over 200 innings and 200 Ks. A return to the NL could be good for him.
That said, it's still too early to decide whether or not this is a win. We don't know who is going to Chicago yet. If it's Lillibridge, Reyes, and change, then this was a no-brainer for Wren and a good acquisition. If Flowers is involved, that makes this move a bit more questionable.
By Jonathan on Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
Hate to burst your bubble Andrew, but looks like Flowers is heading to the White Sox as well as part of the 4 players we'll be sending. Here's a little snippet from the braves.com article:
"From a five-player list provided by the Braves, the White Sox have chosen four players. Two of those players are believed to be shortstop Brent Lillibridge and Minor League catcher Tyler Flowers. The White Sox have also chosen two other players who are yet unidentified, but contrary to earlier reports, the Braves never offered left-handed pitcher Jo-Jo Reyes."
I, too, was all for dealing Jo-Jo, but with how the trade is shaping up, I'm definitely not completely sold on it yet.
By Andrew on Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
I think the main thing this trade does is put an enormous amount of pressure on Wren to acquire BOTH Burnett or Lowe AND a big-time power-hitting outfielder. If he doesn't do those two things, and I'm worried about what he'll have to give up to get the OF, then the Vazquez deal makes no sense. I still don't think we gave up too much to get Vazquez, because the guy is already a good to great pitcher, but he alone does not make us a winning team. If he's not going to be a key component of a winner, then why did we get him?
By Dick Whitman on Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
Apparently all you have to do to get Braves fans excited is have a good run in the Arizona Fall League and a pretty decent season at high-A ball. Leave it to you guys to bemoan the trading of a 27th round draft pick for a solid starter.
By RueGrant on Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
crap, ryan dempster is gone.
By Colin Ake on Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
OK, even if it's too early to hail Flowers as the next McCann (not that we need another catcher soon), would you also say it's too early to know he WON'T become a better prospect? The Braves have always found talent deep into the draft. The point is that there's too much potential upside to dump him for someone I can't bring myself to be excited about, especially when bundled with other prospects.
By Colin Ake on Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
My official first comment on this trade was "interesting" – not "wow, that's good" or "Hm, ok." Not to bash on Vazquez – whom I hope turns into a quality pitcher for us for some years – but whether or not this is "worth it" is determined by the potential upside of the prospects dealt. Flowers, Dick, is hailed as a "top prospect" in the same sentence as Tommy Hanson over on the Braves official website. So to see him go is a little bit of a surprise. The fact that we dealt four players, including our AAA shortstop for this dude
That said, is everybody ignoring Boone Logan? Left-handed reliever acquired from the ChiSox along with Vazquez. 20th round pick. ERA around 5 in '07, 6 in '08, in about 50ish innings each year. Glad to see a left-handed arm in the 'pen, and he brought his strikeouts up to one per inning last year, but he doesn't quite look like Ron Mahay.
I'm unconvinced this is a good trade. I hope Wren knows something I don't, because I don't believe I would have made this trade.
I hope something big and flashy comes out of Vegas.
By RueGrant on Dec 4, 2008 | Reply
I'm not feeling it. I see nothing from Vazquez and I'm not planning on holding my breath, either. Be positive all you want, but I really don't think that "good enough" should ever make the cut.
By Grant on Dec 4, 2008 | Reply
Vazquez is going to be valuable next year, just wait and see. As much as I am sure you would love to the vaunted rotation of Jo-Jo, Charlie Morton, Chuck James and James Parr…. I'll take Vazquez, his 200 innings, 200 K's and the 15+ games he will win in Atlanta over that collection of stiffs any day.
By Jonathan on Dec 4, 2008 | Reply
I'm sold if you can guarantee me 15+ wins . . . oh, and that he won't fall to the ATL injury bug.
By Grant on Dec 4, 2008 | Reply
He's an NL pitcher, who should thrive in Atlanta. I'll stack him up against the other four pitchers I mentioned and say he wins more games than all of them next season – probably strikeouts too for that matter. The Braves are a better team with Vazquez than they were without him.
By Jonathan on Dec 4, 2008 | Reply
Well I'm not doubting that he'll get more wins than the 4 of them combined. I can't see those 4 pulling down more than 8-10.
By Andrew Reilly on Dec 4, 2008 | Reply
Don't be fooled by the numbers alone; Javier Vazquez is only a good pitcher when there is absolutely nothing of significance on the line. He will crush the Nationals in May, but watch him fold against the Phillies and Mets in September. It happened in Montreal, it happened in New York, and it happened in Chicago.
Remember that Johnny Damon grand slam that brought the Red Sox back to life in the 2004 ALCS? Or the epic Evan Longoria bomb in game one of the 2008 ALDS?
But, in all fairness, he will throw 200 innings and will rack up a ton of strikeouts in the process. If the Braves can stack a solid enough rotation to where Vazquez is the #5 and won't be starting in the playoffs (and is conceivably the odd man out down the stretch) you'll be glad you have him.
Logan, on the other hand…yikes. I can't tell you how many times he's been booed off the field here on the South Side. Good luck with both of them.
By Colin Ake on Dec 4, 2008 | Reply
Thanks Andrew. Glad to hear positive things since we just gave up four prospects for them. </sarcasm>
In all honesty, I think Vazquez will be alright late in the rotation. But he scares me once we start depending on him much more than that.
By Grant on Dec 4, 2008 | Reply
Dempster has been gone a while. There's no guarantee he would have been that good outside of Wrigley, where 14 of his 17 wins came – and he had never shown the ability to be a consistent winner as a starter. Just look at his career numbers, hardly awe-inspiring.
Burnett I can see happening, Peavy I am starting to doubt, and the power bat in the outfield may be more important than getting two more big time starters. Vazquez will provide innings and should benefit from the NL. He is a quality addition to a rotation full of question marks and underachievers.
By Nick on Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
Don't know why you think he's "DL-bound" – he's pitched over 200 innings every season except one, when he was with the Yanks and Torre skipped him a couple of times. I was also very disappointed that we gave up Flowers, considering how poorly Vasquez pitched down the stretch last year and what his overall '08 numbers were, but the '07 numbers look good and a return to the NL and Turner Field being a pitchers' park makes me hopeful. Definitely not an ace but could be a solid 3 or 4, Jurrjens being 2 if we get Peavy or Burnett as an ace until Hudson gets back, and then bump everyone down a spot. Doesn't sound like too bad a rotation to me. But I'm optimistic.
By Jonathan on Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
I could definitely see Jurrjens holding down the 2nd spot in the rotation. I'd throw Campillo 4th and Morton/Hanson to fight for 5th. I'd much rather see Smoltz in the pen.
By Jonathan on Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
Let's just hope the pitching injury bug of 2008 is out of our systems next year. He's definitely DL-bound if the season goes anything like this past one.
By Andrew on Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, I don't think we should expect to rely on Vazquez as our ace, and I don't think Wren has any plan to do that. This trade has solidified the middle of our rotation. Now we need a big signing to solidify the front.
By Grant on Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
Vazquez will be good at #3. Suggesting he be the #5 and skipped down the stretch would be a more than a little extreme. He won't throw 200 innings that way, thus making him a very expensive redux of less talented pitchers we already employ. Looks like Burnett will get the nod as the ace if things go according to plan.
By Jonathan on Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
The question is, if things don't go as planned with Burnett, who does pick up the ace role?
By Jonathan on Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
I just hope that we have something on the line at some point this season. The last couple of seasons have been a little rough.
By Colin Ake on Dec 5, 2008 | Reply
So if Burnett is the ace, Vazquez is #3, does Jurrjens retain the #2 role? That'd leave Campillo/Morton/Smoltz/Hanson to fight over two slots. How do you see that shaking out?