Yankees Reacquire Javier Vazquez
Earlier this morning, a pretty big deal came together, as the Yankees agreed to acquire righty Javier Vazquez and lefty Boone Logan in exchange for outfielder Melky Cabrera and pitching prospects Arodys Vizcaino and Michael Dunn. This is the second time that Vazquez and Logan have been traded together in a single package, as last year they were sent to Atlanta from the White Sox in exchange for a package headed by Tyler Flowers.
The basis for the deal is pretty simple. The Braves needed outfield help, payroll flexibility and had a surplus of expensive starting pitching. The Yankees wanted another top tier starter and clearly have been willing to give up talent this offseason. The big question around baseball really seems to be whether the Braves got enough in exchange for Vazquez, who's coming off the best season of his career and one of the best performances in the game last season.
Vazquez, 33, has quietly been one of the best pitchers of the decade, culminating with a 6.6 WAR performance last year in Atlanta, his fourth straight year with a WAR of 4.8 or higher. But the Braves essentially cornered themselves into dealing either Vazquez or Derek Lowe after resigning Tim Hudson, and it appears that they found a very underwhelming market for the aging Lowe. This led to the apparent alternative, which was to extract as much value as possible from Vazquez's career year.
The deal obviously makes sense for the Yankees, who apparently have plans of established a new dynasty. Vazquez has been one of the most durable and consistent pitchers of the past decade. He's pitched in at least 198 innings in every season since 2000, and he's posted FIP numbers below 4.00 in eight of those ten seasons. He's consistently been a 4.5-6.0 WAR pitcher in recent years, although it should be noted that his worst season as a full-time starter came in 2004- his one previous season with the Yankees, during which he posted a 2.2 WAR. Still, most projections put Vazquez into the 4-5 WAR range for next season, making him one of the better starters in the game. It's also worth mentioning that Vazquez has developed a bit of a reputation for pitching at his best in low leverage situations, which is a big part of why he's never really gotten the Ace label before.
Cabrera didn't really have a clear spot in the lineup after the additions of Curtis Granderson and Nick Johnson, but he's good enough to play everyday somewhere so his value wasn't being maximized as New York's fourth outfielder, a spot that likely will be taken by Rule 5 pick Jamie Hoffmann, unless the Yankees resign Johnny Damon. Cabrera's only 25, he's an approximately league average hitter, and he's an above average corner outfielder, making him a solid bet to give Atlanta solid production from right or left field at a cheap rate. And while Vizcaino and Dunn are two of the best arms in their farm system, neither is close to MLB-ready, they managed to keep both Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes, and they still have numeous other quality arms like Dellin Betances and Zach McAllister. Between Vazquez, CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Andy Pettitte and Hughes or Chamberlain, the Yankees have put themselves in a position to have one of the best pitching staffs in the game.
For the Braves, the trade seems like a way to kill three goals with one move: free up payroll for a first baseman, free up a rotation spot for Hudson, and fill one of the holes in the outfield cheaply with Cabrera. Considering that they did a pretty solid job of completing those goals and added some great pitching talent to their system, I think that Atlanta actually comes out of this deal alright. Between Vizcaino, Julio Teheran and Randall Delgado, the Braves now have three of the best young power arms in the game, which is certainly something worth acknowledging. They still have a great rotation with Lowe, Hudson, Jair Jurrjens, Tommy Hanson and Kenshin Kawakami, and they likely can afford to retain Adam LaRoche now if they are interested. Certainly, being able to dump the three years and $45M remaining on Lowe's deal would've been ideal, especially considering the signs of decline that he showed in Atlanta, but that likely wasn't possible without eating a significant chunk of the contract, as indications out of Atlanta were that the Braves preferred to keep Vazquez.
Considering what the Phillies landed for one year of Cliff Lee, arguably a superior pitcher, at a cheaper salary, I think that Atlanta got a pretty solid return for Vazquez, even if it doesn't include the impact bat that Atlanta sorely needs. And with all of the moves that teams in that division have been making, it looks like the race for the AL East crown is getting really hot and Javy, eh?
0 recs |
46 comments
|
Comments
Vazquez for Cabrera
“The big question around baseball really seems to be whether the Braves got enough in exchange for Vazquez.”
Nope.
For a replaceable league average hitter and some good not great prospects
The Yankees added about ~9 wins for 2010 in Granderson/Vazquez at reasonable ~$20 million in salary (less if you include Cabrera’s arb money). The richest team in the league is paying well below market value for wins. That’s not good for the rest of the league.
www.draysbay.com, www.beyondtheboxscore.com, Twitter @trancel
by Tommy Rancel on Dec 22, 2009 2:31 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I certainly don't know much about prospects,
but fangraphs had Dunn and Viscaino at #4 and #6 in the Yankees system. That, plus 3 years of a league average outfielder and 8 million more to spend this year has got to be worth one year of a 4-5 WAR pitcher, right?
by lookatthosetwins on Dec 22, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
I’m pretty sure Vizcaino qualifies as a “great” prospect. If he were eligible for the draft, he’d probably be one of the top 20 picks, if not top 10. Dunn, on the other hand, is too wild and a little too old to be considered “great”, but he has really good stuff and is a lefty, so it’s not like he’s just a throw-in.
by blindsided789 on Dec 22, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
Vazquez is one of those pitchers who consistently has a higher ERA than his FIP, though. His career ERA is .36 higher than his FIP. And, he has a career 4.19 ERA and 3.83 FIP, with all but four seasons coming in the NL. He’s still a good pitcher and should be an outstanding #4 for the Yankees. But, there is a reason he’s not considered an Ace. He has continued to under perform his peripherals the majority of his career. Over a large sample size, career ERA is a better predictor than FIP because it takes into account things that FIP does not. For example, some pitchers hold runners better, defend their position better or pitch better with men on base. Thus, when projecting his WAR, it is probably better to look at his ERA than his FIP. His history suggests that he will under perform that FIP and it will give a more accurate picture of what he will provide the Yankees.
But ERA is affected by so many things that have nothing to do with the pitcher. Even over the course of a larger sample size, the external factors affecting ERA are more significant than the things that aren’t factored into FIP.
Not to mention that his xFIP, which does factor in a lot of things that FIP doesn’t, is even better than his FIP.
Yeah, Javy may pitch worse when the leverage is higher, but he’s still consistently been one of the top starters in the game even so.
by Satchel Price on Dec 22, 2009 4:00 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Does it suggest that?
Or does it suggest any number of other things (that he played on teams with poor defense, for instance)? Or is it simply that even over a period of years you still expect SOMEONE to underperform their true-talent through luck alone and Javy is just that guy?
by cwyers on Dec 22, 2009 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Could be anything
But, over a large sample size, ERA is more predictive. At this point in his career, his ERA is more predictive than his FIP is.
Yeah, The White sox teams he played for weren't great defensively.
It’s weird though, because Mark Buerhle consistently out ERA’d his FIP every year.
I’m not going to look it up, but I thought that the LOB% was the main problem, not the BABIP. So it’s certainly possible that he just couldn’t pitch well out of the stretch. It’s possible he couldn’t handle pressure situations. More than likely, a combination of these things and some random variation, and we can expect his ERA to be slightly higher, (.10? .15?) assuming the Yankees’ defense is about league average.
by lookatthosetwins on Dec 22, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
His career ERA is 4.19
and he gives you 200+ innings a year. So, even if we use that going forward, he still projects well. But, some guys consistently under perform their FIP and he’s done it at several different organizations. Sometimes, I think saber fans like myself fall into the trap of only looking at defense independent stats. They are great stats and better than ERA. No question. But, over a large sample size, they really are not any more predictive. It takes 6 to 7 years to get an appropriate baseline on a player and that is established for Javy. I think it would be incorrect to give absolutely no credit or no blame to a pitcher for balls in play when there is evidence to suggest that some guys hold runners better, defend their position better, have a lower BABIP, pitch better with men on base, etc. In most cases, these differences are negligible. But, when Javy continues to under perform his FIP more often than not and has a pretty significant difference between his ERA and FIP over a very long major league career, then wouldn’t it be wise to wonder if maybe there is something occurring that FIP does not account for?
Regardless, he is a great pitcher and a nice pick up for the Yankees.
What I'm saying is to not ignore either.
Use all the information we have, FIP ERA, and project him somewhere in the middle. We have no idea whether the discrepency is something that he does, some sort of crazy bad luck/varation, or a combination of both. I’ve never seen a study on longterm ERA vs. FIP for how predicative they are. If you know of one, let me know.
by lookatthosetwins on Dec 22, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
I believe MGL did one and found that ERA
was better to look at long term. If not, he continuously mentions that on Tango’s blog that we should use ERA over a large sample size. I don’t have a specific link available off hand.
You are correct, though. We need to use all the data available. I didn’t mean to give off the impression that we should only look at his ERA. Not at all. We need to look at his ERA, FIP, xFIP, tRA, WAR, etc.
This is the best I can find right now.
All FIP (or DIPS ERA) does is eliminate the noise (and a little bit of the skill) in BABIP. That allows us to get a better estimate of a pitcher’s run prevention skill, in the short run. In the long run, ERA, RA or ERC is MUCH better because it captures the differences in BABIP skill among pitchers, as well as the other things I mentioned above that contribute to a pitcher’s run prevention skill but are not addressed at all in FIP (like WP rate)—Mgl 13:39, 2 June 2008 (PDT)).
http://www.tangotiger.net/wiki/index.php?title=Mailbags#Component_v_ERA_-_why_the_gap.3F
That wasn't study, that's an opinion (by a well respected source, but still an opinion)
And if MGL was here, he would tell you that it wouldn’t necessarily apply to a pitcher who’s played on a bunch of lousy defensive teams.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 22, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions
So, you don't think he is at fault at all for a discrepancy between his ERA and FIP
In 12 big league seasons, he has a higher ERA than FIP in 10 of those seasons. That is all bad defense and has nothing to do with him? Do you not like Rally’s career WAR model, then?
Did I say that?
I said that you have to adjust Vazquez’s ERA by his quality of defense
by vivaelpujols on Dec 22, 2009 9:42 PM EST up reply actions
I must have misread your post. Sorry.
It seemed like that is what you implied and when I suggested that we should look at ERA over a larger sample size.
You can't use his career ERA
His ERA last year was 2.87! His 3 year weighted ERA average is is 3.67.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 22, 2009 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
True
but, the average NL ERA was 4.20 and the average AL ERA was 4.46 last season. So, 3.67 would not be the number to use for next season. He gets a penalty for shifting over to the AL and for possible age regression.
3.67 includes two years playing in Chicago, which is a hitters ball park in the AL with a crappy defense
If you want to adjust his 2009 season, that’s fine, but you have to do the same for 2007 and 2008 as well.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 22, 2009 9:21 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't say we had to adjust his 09 season
but pitchers perform worse when they go from the NL to the AL. I was simply talking about projecting for next season.
Pitchers going from the NL to the AL saw their K/9 decline by 0.57, and their BB/9 increase a bit (+0.05). There was also a 0.41 difference in ERA between leagues.
And prediciting for next season includes data from 2007 and 2008
In which he played in the AL.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 22, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions
Where did I say otherwise?
He still gets a penalty and an expected knock in production by switching to the AL. CHONE had him at a 3.41 ERA before the trade.
That projection should dip a bit though
He also has a HR+ of -10 the last 3 years and is going to a HR happy park.
What do you put an Ace or #1 starter at? Tango, I believe, has it at 4.6 WAR.
TotalZone suggests Vazquez's defense with Yankees and White Sox cost him 26 runs over four years.
That would lower his ERA by about .28 runs.
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/v/vazqj001.htm
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
"X" does not suggest it is all on the defense
It is a stat that measures “runs saved or allowed beyond measurable impact of hits, homers, walks, strikeouts, and HBP. This is a catch-all category that includes holding and picking off runners, defensive support including the DP, errors in the field, timing of events (pitching better or worse with runners on base), or any other explanation you can think of.”
I don’t think we should not give any credit or blame to pitchers with regards to actual runs allowed. Mark Buerhle out performed his FIP in each of Javy’s 3 years there just like he usually does. Sure, defense plays a factor. A big part. I acknowledge that. But, not every pitcher is the same with runners on base and some guys consistently under perform or out perform their FIP. That has to be accounted for.
My bad. Read your post wrong.
Point still stands, though. I don’t think we should not give any credit or blame to pitchers with regards to actual runs allowed. Mark Buerhle out performed his FIP in each of Javy’s 3 years there just like he usually does. Sure, defense plays a factor. A big part. I acknowledge that. But, not every pitcher is the same with runners on base and some guys consistently under perform or out perform their FIP. That has to be accounted for.
Given that "strand rate" or pitching with runners on base
Is is a stat with huge amounts of random variation, you don’t take it at face value – you have to regress it. So if you adjust Vazquez’s career ERA based on defensive support, you get about 3.90. His career FIP is 3.83, so presumably the gap between the two is based off of timing. However, since you have to regress timing, you end up with about a 3.85 estimate for Vazquez’s true ERA.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 22, 2009 9:09 PM EST up reply actions
TotalZone says Buehrle's defense cost him 20 runs from 2006 through 2008. (18 for Vazquez).
If you assume that defensive numbers are correct, then adjusting ERA by them doesn’t remove any other skill (pickoffs, holding runners, better with runners on base, etc.)
Now, you could argue that the data use for fielding metrics is too granular and hides some BABIP ability, and therefore adjust ERA by defense removes some pitcher skill.
We’re somewhere in between.
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 22, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions
I'm pretty sure Rally said those were team numbers...
…prorated out, not ratings for defense behind actual pitchers.
Yeah, you're right.
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 22, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions
Vazquez's PZR and FIP and tERA over the past few years:
Year FIP PZR tERA
2004 4.78 4.87 4.79
2005 4.06 4.18 5.17
2006 3.86 4.13 4.08
2007 3.80 4.01 3.66
2008 3.74 4.76 4.01
but unfortunately I don’t have his PZR for 2009.
His PZR is around 0.1 to 0.2 runs higher than his FIP, part of which is explained by timing/stranded runners, which VEP estimated at 0.07 runs*. So Vazquez might be allowing harder-hit balls in play, which accounts for the remaining discrepancy. For instance, he has a 20.7% line drive rate.
*VEP: How did you arrive at this number? I noticed that Vazquez has a huge split with runners on—K/bb drops from 4.26 to 2.63, OPS rises from 697 to 773. And he gets worse with more runners on.
by Alex Krolewski on Dec 23, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
I just took the difference between his FIP and his feilding adjusted ERA
by vivaelpujols on Dec 23, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
2009 NL averages*:
no runners on. OPS 734 K/BB 2.37
runners on. OPS 756, K/BB 1.68
So Vazquez is definitely worse at pitching with runners on than the average pitcher.
BABIP goes up 5 points with runners on. Javy’s BABIP goes up 19 points with runners on. So is this a result of his poor defenses (see above) or is it because he’s pitching worse? My guess is that it’s a mix of both.
*I’m using 2009 NL averages but comparing them to Javy’s career; however, I don’t think these splits change too much from year-to-year.
by Alex Krolewski on Dec 23, 2009 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
The LOB% issue could be related to Vazquez's poor defenses
When runners are on the fielders play out of position; this might hurt poor fielders more than good fielders. Therefore, Vazquez would allow a higher than expected BABIP with runners on, even when we account for the defensive shift.
by Alex Krolewski on Dec 23, 2009 10:58 PM EST up reply actions

by 


























