Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:04 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:31 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Olney reporting we are near a deal for him, 2 years, $4 mil.

He is 32 and can't hit lefties worth a damn, but could be very useful as a utility guy. Better than Gomez and Loretta, IMO. Interesting pick up.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Cue the nay-sayers in 3 ..... 2 .... 1 ......

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:31 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
Sorry, guys, but I'll side with the nay sayers on this one. For a player to get a 2 year deal, I think it should be a requirement that he's actually had 2 good years.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:00 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
As a starting player, I would agree with you. However, we are talking about a bench player (I hope...if he is our starting SS after a Jack trade, I like this deal a lot less), signed for $2 mil a year. I suppose you could get a guy for the major league minimum for that role, but I like Vazquez at that price. I think he would outperform the guys you could get at major league minimum, too.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:48 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
Does anyone find it interesting at all that Mark Loretta, our first choice and the consistently superior player, got 1.25 mil for 1 year?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Kingston wrote:
Does anyone find it interesting at all that Mark Loretta, our first choice and the consistently superior player, got 1.25 mil for 1 year?

No. Loretta is 5 years older than Vazquez - I expect a lesser deal for a declining player.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:43 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
Willton wrote:
Kingston wrote:
Does anyone find it interesting at all that Mark Loretta, our first choice and the consistently superior player, got 1.25 mil for 1 year?

No. Loretta is 5 years older than Vazquez - I expect a lesser deal for a declining player.


How about a lesser deal for a lesser player? And an obviously less coveted player?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Kingston wrote:
Willton wrote:
Kingston wrote:
Does anyone find it interesting at all that Mark Loretta, our first choice and the consistently superior player, got 1.25 mil for 1 year?

No. Loretta is 5 years older than Vazquez - I expect a lesser deal for a declining player.


How about a lesser deal for a lesser player? And an obviously less coveted player?

If you're implying that Vazquez is a lesser player, there will be a few that disagree with you, including the person who started this thread.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:01 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
Theres always those wholl disagree, but looking at their careers and the pattern of Vazquez's career in particular, I cant imagine that a good case can be made that Vazquez is the better player, or even a good one. The man was a bum til he was 31, then had 3 good months out of 6. Weve seen these sort of fluke stretches before: Duffy, Tike, Brown, etc... only the fact that Vazquez is in his 30s makes it more certain that Vazquez will probably not come close to that level of production again.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:04 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Well, Kingston, compare this deal to that of Nick Punto, who was signed for 2 years at $8 mil.

Vazquez' career line is .257/.328/.358, compared to Punto's .252/.319/.332.

Granted Punto gives you some more steals and better defense, but at double the value?

I think this shows that NH signed a reasonable deal with a guy that fits our needs. As for Arlington helping his numbers, he did put up a road .749, which isn't terrible for an infielder (better than JW's #'s). Further, his career line against righties (.273/.346/.391) suggests that if Russell uses him properly (a lefty that can spell all of our infielders against tough righties), he could put up reasonable numbers for a utility guy. And decent utility guys cost $2 mil. Yeah, Loretta at $1 mil would have been a good deal too, but I find nothing to criticize with this deal.

Or would you prefer Gomez and Rivas?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
Sorry, but I dont find it a compelling argument that a dumb move isnt so dumb because someone else made a dumber move.

Look, time will tell. But I suspect youll grow sick of this guy sooner than later.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Ahhh, a favorite winter passtime... argueing about backup INF's!

Can he, or can't he, still hit .270 and catch groundballs. We found out last year that Gomez could still hit the ball, but left his glove and feet back in Cleveland.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7275
ZelieMike wrote:
Ahhh, a favorite winter passtime... argueing about backup INF's!

Can he, or can't he, still hit .270 and catch groundballs. We found out last year that Gomez could still hit the ball, but left his glove and feet back in Cleveland.

ZM


So I guess that made him our back middle DH

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:06 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Kingston wrote:
Sorry, but I dont find it a compelling argument that a dumb move isnt so dumb because someone else made a dumber move.



Not saying that at all. I'm simply showing what the market rate is for a light hitting utility infielder. We needed a utility infielder. Preferably a lefty. We paid at or below the market rate for what we got. Its an improvement over what we have had in that role last year (or for as long as I can remember...names like Mike Benjamin, Jeff Reboluet, Abe Nunez, etc).

In summary, its a small move to fill a small hole that had to be filled, and he got it done at a reasonable rate for a reasonable talent (you ain't getting Furcal for a utility guy). Nothing to complain about. Save that for when he dumps a decent reliever for nothing, then trades a half decent pitching prospect to get a replacement for said reliever who is not as good as the reliever traded away!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:26 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
You understand that Punto is Minnesota's Starting Shortstop, dont you?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:05 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
So the pirates bring in a utility infielder? So how is this going to improve a team that had one of the worst records in the league last year? We need to spend money and go after upper level free agents like derek lowe. I am not looking to optimistic to this coming season.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:13 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Kingston wrote:
You understand that Punto is Minnesota's Starting Shortstop, dont you?


Yes, I understand that. And yet, we got a comparable player, to use in a much lesser role, at a lower price.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:21 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Ryann wrote:
So the pirates bring in a utility infielder? So how is this going to improve a team that had one of the worst records in the league last year? We need to spend money and go after upper level free agents like derek lowe. I am not looking to optimistic to this coming season.


Nor should you be optimistic. They will lose a lot this season. And even if they would obtain Derek Lowe, they will lose a lot this season. It is not the time to be signing upper level free agents.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:33 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
BBF wrote:
Ryann wrote:
So the pirates bring in a utility infielder? So how is this going to improve a team that had one of the worst records in the league last year? We need to spend money and go after upper level free agents like derek lowe. I am not looking to optimistic to this coming season.


Nor should you be optimistic. They will lose a lot this season. And even if they would obtain Derek Lowe, they will lose a lot this season. It is not the time to be signing upper level free agents.


I'll take it one step further and say that even if the Pirates were a contender, a $36 million, three year contract, to a guy who will be 36 in June, is counterintuitive to a team operating under a small market philosophy. The Pirates will never have the luxury of gambling on a player like Lowe playing well into his 40's ala Maddux or Clemens. Rolling snake eyes means another Matt Morriss fiasco.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Ramon Vazquez
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:56 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
Then how about some other top free agents. Its never the time to sign good free agents. We need to spend money and bring in new and better players. Then it will make the time to be good.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits