Yankees deal for Vazquez

[diony]

So I think it's homerish... I mean humorous that you would bring up Buchholz when questioning the Red Sox rotation depth and durability, then turn around and call Chamberlain a "young stud" who puts the Yankees in a "good predicament".

 

Any team on baseball would kill to have Hughes and Joba competing for their 5th spot. That's a good predicament.

[jacksonianmarch]

This is the point. Chamberlain or Hughes are fighting for the #5 slot. 1-4 is set in stone. For the sox, Buchholz is either a #4 or a #5. It isnt a bad predicament, but it assumes more risk.

[Dipre]

This is the point. Chamberlain or Hughes are fighting for the #5 slot. 1-4 is set in stone. For the sox' date=' Buchholz is either a #4 or a #5. It isnt a bad predicament, but it assumes more risk.[/quote']

 

 

What?

 

He's #5. What risk?

[jacksonianmarch]

You dont know who is the #5 since DiceK is just as much of a question mark since he's coming back from a shoulder injury. There is an inherent risk that you will need to lean on a pitcher more, ie move them up in the pecking order. A #4 starter is vital. A #5 starter can be skipped 10 times a yr and is obviously less vital (see Yankees 2009). The bottom line is....

 

The sox have a 1-2 punch that is really hard to find, unless your root for the Mariners. Their #3 is at least a #2 in performance and is really only a mild injury question mark. Your #4 and #5 spots are question marks since one is coming off a concerning injury and the other is entering his first full yr of big league starting. The Yankees have an ace that is the best pitcher between the two sides. They have a 2-3-4 that is durable, but not of the caliber of Beckett (when he isnt hurt) and Lackey (if he isnt hurt). Notice a theme here? There is a certain relief that you can take when you know who is taking the hill. I am pretty damn sure that 1-4 will be starting regularly thoughout the yr. The #5 spot is a question mark. For the sox, you are pretty sure 1-3 will take the hill, although a bit less sure IMO when you talk about Beckett and Lackey due to their recent injury history. My question for you, is, can you count on 30+ starts from DiceK or Buchholz? The answer is, no. Just like I cannot count on 30 starts from Joba in yr 2. It certainly may happen without a hitch. But there is an inherent amount of risk involved.

[Dipre]

You dont know who is the #5 since DiceK is just as much of a question mark since he's coming back from a shoulder injury. There is an inherent risk that you will need to lean on a pitcher more' date=' ie move them up in the pecking order. A #4 starter is vital. A #5 starter can be skipped 10 times a yr and is obviously less vital (see Yankees 2009). The bottom line is....[/quote']

 

You're over-blowing the importance of Dice-K's injury to help your argument so much that it borders on the ridiculous.

[jacksonianmarch]

He's thrown 227IP over the past 2 seasons. He was throwing beach balls up there last yr. And he complained of a "tired shoulder." Do you want me to keep going or are you willing to accept that he's just a bit of a ??? for 2010.

[Keeper]

There must be a lot of stupid Yankee fans on FanGraphs. They're projecting Hughes will start 34 games, Chamberlain will start 38 games, and Vazquez will start 36 games. LMAO!

[Dipre]

He's thrown 227IP over the past 2 seasons. He was throwing beach balls up there last yr. And he complained of a "tired shoulder." Do you want me to keep going or are you willing to accept that he's just a bit of a ??? for 2010.

 

Jacko, after he came back from his "tired shoulder" issues (Lol WBC) he had the best velocity he exhibited since mid-2008 and much better command. The issue here is not that he's a "Bit of a ?????" but you're overplaying the ????? into a ???????????????????????????????. He might need some time off during the season, but he looked healthy at the end of last year, so i don't see why he's going to be magically injured at the beginning of 2010.

[jacksonianmarch]

38 games? Thats pretty funny.

[jacksonianmarch]

Jacko' date=' after he came back from his "tired shoulder" issues (Lol WBC) he had the best velocity he exhibited since mid-2008 and much better command. The issue here is not that he's a "Bit of a ?????" but you're overplaying the ????? into a ???????????????????????????????. He might need some time off during the season, but he looked healthy at the end of last year, so i don't see why he's going to be magically injured at the beginning of 2010.[/quote']

 

He did look healthy at the end of the yr. But you are counting on him FOR THE WHOLE YR. I dont disagree that he could be solid start to start. But he has a serious likelihood of injury through the yr

[yankees228]

There must be a lot of stupid Yankee fans on FanGraphs. They're projecting Hughes will start 34 games' date=' Chamberlain will start 38 games, and Vazquez will start 36 games. LMAO![/quote']

 

However, the amount of innings each they're predicted to pitch is pretty realistic, so something just doesn't add up.

[Dipre]

However' date=' the amount of innings each they're predicted to pitch is pretty realistic, so something just doesn't add up.[/quote']

 

It's probably a flaw in the formula.

[Keeper]

However' date=' the amount of innings each they're predicted to pitch is pretty realistic, so something just doesn't add up.[/quote']

 

Yeah, there is no problem with the innings. Maybe it's some kind of inside joke. I'm not sure how anyone can take it seriously.

[Dipre]

Yeah' date=' there is no problem with the innings. Maybe it's some kind of inside joke. I'm not sure how anyone can take it seriously.[/quote']

 

They have Lincecum slotted for 36 starts too. It has to be a flaw in the formula.

 

Found it.

 

The issue is with the "Fans" projection. That one is actually made by page visitors. Lol bias.

[Imperial59]

This is the point. Chamberlain or Hughes are fighting for the #5 slot. 1-4 is set in stone. For the sox' date=' Buchholz is either a #4 or a #5. It isnt a bad predicament, but it assumes more risk.[/quote']

 

Yes, how objective of you. Having two pitchers who have yet to show an ability to be league average, compete for your 5th spot assumes much less risk than having a guy who's been a league average starter or better the last 9 years compete with a young guy for the 5th spot.

 

 

Do you really believe this stuff, or do you just say it for the sake of argument?

[Imperial59]

Any team on baseball would kill to have Hughes and Joba competing for their 5th spot. That's a good predicament.

 

I think most teams would rather have a guy who's proven to be a league average or better starting pitcher competing with a young guy with potential then have two guys who have to this point proven incapable of being league average starters competing for a job as a starter.

[Dipre]

He did look healthy at the end of the yr. But you are counting on him FOR THE WHOLE YR. I dont disagree that he could be solid start to start. But he has a serious likelihood of injury through the yr

 

The only one making this "injury-risk" assessment is you. And it's pretty ridiculous. He looked good and had his velocity back. You're making a big deal out of nothing to suit your argument. By those standards then both Burnett and Pettite are huge "?" but you refuse to admit it. You can't have it both ways.

[Imperial59]

You dont know who is the #5 since DiceK is just as much of a question mark since he's coming back from a shoulder injury. There is an inherent risk that you will need to lean on a pitcher more' date=' ie move them up in the pecking order.[/quote']

 

So you're assuming he'll be injured next year? If you want to get that ridiculous, I could claim the Yankees don't know who their #2 starter is because Burnett has never been healthy for 3 years in a row. But making an argument that assumes a player on your rival team will be injured is homerism as it's finest and baiting at it's worst. But hey, I guess that's all you've got when we prove you wrong again and again when it comes to anything slightly objective, where stats can be used.

[Imperial59]

He did look healthy at the end of the yr. But you are counting on him FOR THE WHOLE YR. I dont disagree that he could be solid start to start. But he has a serious likelihood of injury through the yr

 

No less a likelihood for injury than Burnett, Chamberlain or Hughes, given their extensive injury histories.

[Dipre]

So you're assuming he'll be injured next year? If you want to get that ridiculous' date=' I could claim the Yankees don't know who their #2 starter is because Burnett has never been healthy for 3 years in a row. But making an argument that assumes a player on your rival team will be injured is homerism as it's finest and baiting at it's worst.[/quote']

 

The only one making this "injury-risk" assessment is you. And it's pretty ridiculous. He looked good and had his velocity back. You're making a big deal out of nothing to suit your argument. By those standards then both Burnett and Pettite are huge "?" but you refuse to admit it. You can't have it both ways.

 

Jacko, please take the time to read the quoted posts. Take them to heart. Stop the bias and the homerism, because it's getting ridiculous.

[Spudboy]

The only one making this "injury-risk" assessment is you. And it's pretty ridiculous. He looked good and had his velocity back. You're making a big deal out of nothing to suit your argument. By those standards then both Burnett and Pettite are huge "?" but you refuse to admit it. You can't have it both ways.

 

lol.

[Imperial59]

Jacko' date=' please take the time to read the quoted posts. Take them to heart. Stop the bias and the homerism, because it's getting ridiculous.[/quote']

 

 

The day that guy takes anything to heart will be the day hell freezes over. He'll just read what we've said, assess whether or not he's been proven wrong/embarassed enough that he wants to change the subject and then he'll likely move on to his next point (probably something like "the Yankees are in a good predicament with Cano being a poor defensive player because he's a young stud who would turn it around next year").

[diony]

I think most teams would rather have a guy who's proven to be a league average or better starting pitcher competing with a young guy with potential then have two guys who have to this point proven incapable of being league average starters competing for a job as a starter.

 

I think Joba and Phil are still considered young guys with potential.

[jacksonianmarch]

I think most teams would rather have a guy who's proven to be a league average or better starting pitcher competing with a young guy with potential then have two guys who have to this point proven incapable of being league average starters competing for a job as a starter.

 

I want you to take a look at what an average #5 starter pitched to in 2009. You'd be shocked.

[jacksonianmarch]

So you're assuming he'll be injured next year? If you want to get that ridiculous' date=' I could claim the Yankees don't know who their #2 starter is because Burnett has never been healthy for 3 years in a row. But making an argument that assumes a player on your rival team will be injured is homerism as it's finest and baiting at it's worst. But hey, I guess that's all you've got when we prove you wrong again and again when it comes to anything slightly objective, where stats can be used.[/quote']

 

This is stupid. Seriously, are you guys that delusional? A guy missed 2/3 of the season with arm trouble and he isnt an injury risk? Seriously?

[Dipre]

I think Joba and Phil are still considered young guys with potential.

 

No one has stated otherwise. Please read.

 

 

This is stupid. Seriously' date=' are you guys that delusional? A guy missed 2/3 of the season with arm trouble and he isnt an injury risk? Seriously?[/quote']

 

Again. If Burnett is not an injury risk (he's had everything from arm trouble to a stretched buttocks) then Dice-K, who looked good and had his velocity back at the end of last year is not an injury risk.

 

If after his comeback there had been some semblance of velocity loss or anything like that, or if any media outlet or the team itself had expressed concerned about Dice-K's health, then i'd obviously be a little more worried, but since it's "Jacko's doomsday device" predictions, i'll just go by what's obvious: If there's no indication he's injured, he hasn't lost velocity, and looked good at the end of last year, why would i believe he's injured?

 

Quesiton:

 

Who's more delusional?

 

Us for thinking Dice-K's not gonna break down like a Yugo, or you for thinking the Yankee rotation will be as healthy as it was last year, specially with AJ "Everything hurts" Burnett and Andy "Old-timer extraordinaire" Petitte?

[riverside sluggers]

Umm Dice-K showed up overweight and not ready for ST, then he geared himself up hard for the wonderful WBC. Thats not a good mix. After the Sox regained control of his rehabbing, he was able to finish the season on a strong note

[jacksonianmarch]

Wow, yeah, you must be smoking some serious dub-age to try and make that statement. With pitchers' health, its all about "what have you done for me lately." DiceK has gone down with a shoulder injury. Burnett has strung 2 200IP seasons together and had a 170ish season right behind that one.

[jacksonianmarch]

sorry RS, the above post was directed at Dipre

[Dipre]

Wow' date=' yeah, you must be smoking some serious dub-age to try and make that statement. With pitchers' health, its all about "what have you done for me lately." DiceK has gone down with a shoulder injury. Burnett has strung 2 200IP seasons together and had a 170ish season right behind that one.[/quote']

 

Jacko, you're an educated fellow. You're not stupid. Cut the ********. You know that most of the Matsuzaka's time on the sidelines last year was spent getting him back to shape. "Wow", what?. There's a difference between reality and your perception of it.