The Javier Vazquez Trade: Great for the Braves, Questionable for the White Sox
The Chicago White Sox have traded Javier Vazquez and Boone Logan to the Atlanta Braves in exchange for Brent Lillibridge, Tyler Flowers, Jon Gilmore, and Santos Rodriguez.
I respect Kenny Williams. I think he’s an above-average GM, even though he’s not particularly saber-friendly. However, he has made two very questionable moves in the last two weeks – first, he dealt Nick Swisher to the Yankees for essentially nothing, and now he’s traded Javier Vazquez to the Braves for a utility man and three prospects.
When Williams traded for Nick Swisher before last season, he essentially cleaned out an already bare farm system. At the time, I thought Williams gave up an appropriate amount for Swisher, but I questioned the timing of the move; I didn’t think the White Sox would be particularly competitive in 2008, and I wondered why they were playing for short-term success.
I was wrong. Although Swisher didn’t play well, the White Sox won the Central Division and made the playoffs. It appeared that Williams’s gamble to go for it in the short-term paid off; although his team was bounced from the playoffs in the first round, any season in which you make the playoffs is a good season. And, considering their success in 2008 and the composition of the roster (namely, several of their most productive players are rather old), it makes sense for the White Sox to go for broke once again in 2009, in what looks to be a very weak division.
So what does Williams do? He trades two of his main players in exchange for backup infielders and prospects. This begs the question: what is Kenny Williams doing?

It looks like Williams is trying to play the dangerous game of “rebuilding on the fly.” He wants to keep his major league team competitive in 2009 while re-stocking his farm system at the same time. In theory, this is a good idea: you build for the future without sacrificing much in the short-term. But in practice, it’s extremely difficult to pull off. By attempting to build for the present and the future, many teams often times do neither. The Central Division is there for the taking in 2009, but Williams made his team worse at the major league level with these two trades. Furthermore, while the White Sox’s farm system was nearly completely barren before the trade, the system is still well-below-average after the trade.
Williams needs to make a decision: is he going to seriously try to win the division in 2009, or is he building for 2010 and beyond? If it’s the former, he needs to add to his team, especially his starting pitching, as the current roster probably isn’t good enough to win even a weak division. If it’s the latter, Williams needs to acknowledge that to himself and make a concerted effort to trade some more of his veterans who have value – namely, Jermaine Dye and perhaps Mark Buehrle or Jim Thome – in order to further stock his farm system. Teams that attempt to rebuild on the fly often times end up with a mediocre team in the present and a mediocre farm system.
As for the Braves, this is an absolutely fantastic trade. Some may look at the Braves 2008 record of 72-90, coupled with the two super-powers ahead of them, and conclude that the Braves chances of competing in 09 are remote. However, it appears as if Frank Wren understands that his team is not nearly as bad as their record indicates. Their third-order record in 2008 was 79-83, and that was in a season wrecked by injuries and a terrible bullpen.
In reality, the Braves are probably somewhere around a .500 team. Adding Vazquez and his 128 tRA+ is a huge upgrade over some of the scrubs that the Braves were throwing out there every fifth day. Furthermore, the Braves gave up very little of any consequence for them. The biggest piece in the deal was catcher Tyler Flowers, who would be blocked by Brian McCann even if he was to develop perfectly. Losing Lillibridge won’t hurt them at all, and while the two teenagers in the deal (Jon Gilmore, and Santos Rodriguez) have high ceilings, they are very far from the majors and this quite risky. Essentially, the Braves cashed in their best trade bait in exchange for an undervalued starting pitcher.
However, if the Braves are serious about competing in 2009, they will need to add another piece or two. Rumor has it that the Braves are preparing a five-year offer to AJ Burnett – the exact details haven’t been released yet, but if true, this would make the Braves true contenders in the NL East. The Braves have several minor leaguers who are nearly ready to produce at the major league level – namely, center fielder Jordan Schafer and pitcher Tommy Hanson – and if the Braves can sign Burnett they are going to be in the race, alongside the Phillies, Mets, and maybe even the Marlins. The White Sox, meanwhile, are no longer the favorites to win the AL Central unless they add to their major league team.
Comments
the white sox were the favorite to win the al central next year?
seems to me that title belonged to the twins even before the offseason began. of course, wherever the sox were placed in that race, they look further adrift now.
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 11:22 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
The Twins?!
Really?
If there’s any obvious answer (which I’m not sure there is), I would assume it’s the Indians.
by philkid3 on
Dec 4, 2008 4:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
took the white sox to one game playoff.
which many argue wouldn’t have been necessary if they’d only brought up liriano sooner. generally younger team which should be on the upswing while the white sox are a generally older team which should be on a downswing. far less question marks going into the offseason than any other team in the central. obviously offseason moves will dictate a more appropriate order. but the indians? still look shaky to me. i don’t think any team was a clear cut favorite but i wouldn’t have chosen the white sox if i were making a definitive statement like he did.
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 4:54 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Okay, cool, they took the White Sox to one game.
They were also five wins above third order.
The Mariners won 88 games in ‘07. A more extreme example, but there’s a reason so many people said expecting them to be good was idiotic.
by philkid3 on
Dec 4, 2008 8:02 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i think it’s far less idiotic to say that the guys the twins have are going to stay the same/improve as opposed to the craptacular bunch the mariners had.
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 5, 2008 10:01 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree.
But the point is still looking at total wins isn’t a great way to go about your predictions for the next season.
by philkid3 on
Dec 5, 2008 2:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
thanks. i'm aware of that.
and, if you’ll read my post, i didn’t just soley do that, did i.
by larry on
Dec 5, 2008 3:50 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the ALC
have been wildly unpredictable for the last 3-4 season, the only team that has remained fairly consistent is the Royals (as in consistently horrendous) but other then that every other team has been in the playoff at least once, and in very very serious contention at least another season.
the other divisions have been fairly predictable, but the ALC have been crazy. at this point i wouldn’t be shocked if the Royals somehow make the playoff in the next couple of seasons.
let’s see..
White Sox: for some reason, the always good but not great team in the early 2000s suddenly put together enough vets that all had good seasons (along with finding Bobby Jenks) and was awsome in 05, then they slowly regressed to their former self in the next two season, and just as everyone expecting them to implode into the abyss, they suddenly rebounded again in 08 and made the playoffs.
Twins: they were the dominent team in the early 2000s, after 05 though they always been in the mix but only got over the edge in 06, this year they looked like they were going to go for a fire sale but instead came so close to making it.
Indians: they have a awsome roster if you think closely , over the last 4 year they had CC / Sizemore / Pronk / Lee / Peralta / Martinez etc… yet something ALWAYS go wrong with them, except in 07 .
Tigers: they’re breakout in 06 was somewhat predictable but perhaps came a bit sooner than expected. at that point it looked like their combination of awsome kids and good vets made it look like they were a lock to dominate the division for many years… woops.
Now almost every team seem to be in the same boat of got some bright spots and a lot of dark spots, it’s hard to really see what really happens from here, for all we know the Royals could make the division next year if their kids breakout and their blackholes aren’t as horrible as previous years.
by RollingWave on
Dec 5, 2008 10:05 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think we need to give more attention to the money here.
Vazquez will make $11.5MM per season for two more years. That type of money can go a long ways towards a replacement for the White Sox, say Lowe, Burnett, or Sheets, especially if teams actually are going to be as stingy as the past month has implied. Let’s say they can sign Burnett for four years, $15MM per year. Is it worth paying $9MM ($4.5MM x 2) for Flowers, Lillibridge, etc?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Dec 4, 2008 11:37 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
the white sox have certainly lopped quite a bit of payroll with these trades and their other departures.
the question is, will the GM who has never paid for anything but second tier or lower free agents finally splurge?
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 11:40 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's a great point.
It also may be true that Williams was ordered to cut payroll by ownership.
by Peter Bendix on
Dec 4, 2008 11:47 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't have it on paper
but the talk on the radio here in Chicago is that it was primarily a cost-cutting and doghouse emptying move, not an salary-dumping move.
by dakoose on
Dec 4, 2008 3:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
cost-cutting doesn't equal salary dumping?
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 4:04 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe one is to free up payroll and one is to cut payroll to save ownership money?
Maybe? I’m confused, too.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Dec 4, 2008 4:10 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
he did make a comment in the call that made it seem like the money for the viciedo signing came from the "cost-cutting" of the swisher trade.
which was previously suspected.
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 4:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i'd also quention your prospect evaluation if you think a system which will apparently contain gordon beckham, tyler flowers, aaron poreda, dayan viciedo... is "well-below-average"
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 11:39 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
It is.
A few good prospects does not a system make.
And I’m not even sold on Poreda being that good of a prospect. Decent, yes, but not particularly good.
by Peter Bendix on
Dec 4, 2008 11:46 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. i doubt many of the so-called experts would agree with your assessment.
but what the hell do any of us know about prospects?
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 11:49 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"i doubt many of the so-called experts would agree with your assessment."
Depending on who we’re refering to, I don’t.
by philkid3 on
Dec 4, 2008 4:47 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What's more important: system depth or a few good prospects?
by R.J. Anderson on
Dec 4, 2008 12:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i'll butt in.
both. or neither. overall projected value seems to me the appropriate measure. extreme example, but we’ve got this guy telling us that pujols is worth two “star” players. depth is nice and can be useful. but how much is one excellent prospect worth in terms of “depth”?
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 12:26 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Would you agree that superstars are harder to find than "depth" players?
by R.J. Anderson on
Dec 4, 2008 1:37 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
sure
however, i would be open to someone telling me that you can find three depth players just as easily as you can find one superstar and those things are equal in value (or some similar argument). i’m not sure as i’m quite a few years behind on my draft pick/prospect valuation reading. i hear some interesting things have come out recently.
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 1:42 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
System depth
But, actually, system depth means shit without quality, and quality doesn’t mean much without quantity. Unless you have someone like Albert Pujols on your system.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on
Dec 4, 2008 2:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
and quality, even if it fails to reach expectations, often ends up being adequate.
guys who start off adequate often end up crap.
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 2:47 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And in the case of the White Sox, a few quality guys can=
one or two quality Major League players, in essence.
I would rather have a few guys with a shot at becoming above average than a lot of guys with a shot at becoming average, hoping to find a diamond in the ruff. The average guys are more easily found and replaceable.
by Daniel Berlyn on
Dec 4, 2008 5:55 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that's probably right.
at any rate, maybe it was semantics that all started this, but i don’t see, like, 25 better farm systems now that flowers and viciedo are added, which is how i would define a well below average system. but evaluations abound.
this post is subject to revision based upon whatever colin says the HBT annual has to say on the topic discussed.
by larry on
Dec 4, 2008 6:04 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
it becomes a matter of preference
rather than near-fact, which is at least something to work with. I’m satisfied, as I didn’t think that this maneuver was an option for the White Sox.
by Daniel Berlyn on
Dec 4, 2008 6:16 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, I meant good system depth
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d rather have 5 guys that project to be a bit above average than 2 that project to be great (if I had to choose, of course). Not all prospects pan out, and a guy can always go down with injury. I especially feel this way about pitching.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on
Dec 5, 2008 8:15 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think it's better to have pitching depth...
…and position player stars. Just the nature of the thing – it’s harder to project pitching than hitting.
by cwyers on
Dec 5, 2008 11:29 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'd rather go find FA pitching scraps than position player scraps, though.
Not that I don’t want position player stars. Guess I’d take stars on both sides of the ledger. Sign underrated FA pitchers and good-glove FA position players to fill in the holes. You just can’t can win by signing many FA stars.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Dec 5, 2008 11:38 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Victor Wang has a great article in the THT annual...
…about prospect value. Type A hitter prospects are more valuable than Type A pitching prospects; Type C pitching prospects are more valuable than Type C hitting prospects. I really recommend that article to anyone (I think so far it’s my favorite article in there).
by cwyers on
Dec 5, 2008 12:14 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
To me, that reads as if we're mislabeling prospects, then.
How many of each Type are there for hitters and pitchers?
Can’t wait to read it. This year’s annual?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Dec 5, 2008 12:20 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hmm, that actually makes sense
But it could be because of semantics. It seems as if, for example, Type A hitting prospects are going to fail less often than Type A pitching prospects, because pitchers tend to get hurt. Often times, injuries that are main/only thing that prevent Type A prospects (I define that as very-upper-echelon prospects) from at least making the majors.
Whereas Type C hitting prospects’ ceilings are so low that they are easily replaceable with random 28-year-olds hanging out in triple-A. Meanwhile, Type C pitching prospects’ ceilings are that of a somewhat-useful back-of-the-rotation guy or a reliever. I think that again comes down to the fact that pitchers are more risky.
In other words, a somewhat scrubby pitcher is more valuable than a somewhat scrubby hitter.
This is just off the top of my head, and is probably full of logic failures.
by Peter Bendix on
Dec 5, 2008 12:24 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Victor does mention the reliever angle...
…and there simply is more risk with pitchers than with hitters.
I don’t really want to go too far into the weeds with this, mostly because Victor explains it better than I do and I really don’t want to steal his thunder.
by cwyers on
Dec 5, 2008 12:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs











BtB on Facebook
BtB_Sky on Twitter




