Carl Pavano is not an innings eater. He may have averaged 7.0 IP/start last season, but he's not an innings eater. In 12 big league seasons, he's exceeded 200 IP three times. In 2009 he tallied 199.1 IP, so we'll even give him the benefit of the doubt. 12 big league seasons, 4 at 200 IP, 4 between 100-136 IP, and 4 at less than 100 IP. No thanks, not for $11 mil per over three years. Odds are, he'll hit 200 innings once in those three years.

 

Vazquez, of course, is coming off of his worst season since coming into the league. However, unlike Pavano, he's the model of consistency. You know what you're going to get with this guy. In his 13 big league seasons, he's pitched 200 innings in 9 of them. The other 4 seasons have all been between 150-200 IP. This is the guy we want.

 

If salaries were the same, I'd take Vazquez over Pavano 10 out of 10 times.

how long of a deal do we need to sign vazquez to?

Don't we need a LHP in the rotation??

This means Sanabia goes to the BP and improves it further

I don't really like either of those options, unless Vazquez is a one year deal for like $5 mil.

Carl Pavano is not an innings eater. He may have averaged 7.0 IP/start last season, but he's not an innings eater. In 12 big league seasons, he's exceeded 200 IP three times. In 2009 he tallied 199.1 IP, so we'll even give him the benefit of the doubt. 12 big league seasons, 4 at 200 IP, 4 between 100-136 IP, and 4 at less than 100 IP. No thanks, not for $11 mil per over three years. Odds are, he'll hit 200 innings once in those three years.

 

Vazquez, of course, is coming off of his worst season since coming into the league. However, unlike Pavano, he's the model of consistency. You know what you're going to get with this guy. In his 13 big league seasons, he's pitched 200 innings in 9 of them. The other 4 seasons have all been between 150-200 IP. This is the guy we want.

 

If salaries were the same, I'd take Vazquez over Pavano 10 out of 10 times.

 

 

IP/G is the statistic you look at, not IP overall.

 

And I dont care about his career so much as I care about his recent career. And last season he was an innings eater.

 

It's risk-reward. Play it safe with Vazquez and probably get what Vazquez has given often in his career, maybe be dominant. Or take Pavano, hope he performs like last year.

Carl Pavano is not an innings eater. He may have averaged 7.0 IP/start last season, but he's not an innings eater. In 12 big league seasons, he's exceeded 200 IP three times. In 2009 he tallied 199.1 IP, so we'll even give him the benefit of the doubt. 12 big league seasons, 4 at 200 IP, 4 between 100-136 IP, and 4 at less than 100 IP. No thanks, not for $11 mil per over three years. Odds are, he'll hit 200 innings once in those three years.

 

Vazquez, of course, is coming off of his worst season since coming into the league. However, unlike Pavano, he's the model of consistency. You know what you're going to get with this guy. In his 13 big league seasons, he's pitched 200 innings in 9 of them. The other 4 seasons have all been between 150-200 IP. This is the guy we want.

 

If salaries were the same, I'd take Vazquez over Pavano 10 out of 10 times.

 

 

IP/G is the statistic you look at, not IP overall.

 

And I dont care about his career so much as I care about his recent career. And last season he was an innings eater.

 

It's risk-reward. Play it safe with Vazquez and probably get what Vazquez has given often in his career, maybe be dominant. Or take Pavano, hope he performs like last year.

 

 

Why do you dislike Nolasco then? He's a statistical innings eater. Both career-wise, and recent.

Carl Pavano is not an innings eater. He may have averaged 7.0 IP/start last season, but he's not an innings eater. In 12 big league seasons, he's exceeded 200 IP three times. In 2009 he tallied 199.1 IP, so we'll even give him the benefit of the doubt. 12 big league seasons, 4 at 200 IP, 4 between 100-136 IP, and 4 at less than 100 IP. No thanks, not for $11 mil per over three years. Odds are, he'll hit 200 innings once in those three years.

 

Vazquez, of course, is coming off of his worst season since coming into the league. However, unlike Pavano, he's the model of consistency. You know what you're going to get with this guy. In his 13 big league seasons, he's pitched 200 innings in 9 of them. The other 4 seasons have all been between 150-200 IP. This is the guy we want.

 

If salaries were the same, I'd take Vazquez over Pavano 10 out of 10 times.

 

 

IP/G is the statistic you look at, not IP overall.

 

And I dont care about his career so much as I care about his recent career. And last season he was an innings eater.

 

It's risk-reward. Play it safe with Vazquez and probably get what Vazquez has given often in his career, maybe be dominant. Or take Pavano, hope he performs like last year.

 

 

Why do you dislike Nolasco then? He's a statistical innings eater. Both career-wise, and recent.

 

 

 

vazquez is going to be consistently incosistent, with high strikeout totals. meaning he will go out and get lit up 1 of every 5 starts. pavano has more consistently solid "stuff", and does not get the strikeout totals. Honestly i think pavano would be helpful for vostad, but i don't think that is enough of a reason to sign a guy for 3 years.

Carl Pavano is not an innings eater. He may have averaged 7.0 IP/start last season, but he's not an innings eater. In 12 big league seasons, he's exceeded 200 IP three times. In 2009 he tallied 199.1 IP, so we'll even give him the benefit of the doubt. 12 big league seasons, 4 at 200 IP, 4 between 100-136 IP, and 4 at less than 100 IP. No thanks, not for $11 mil per over three years. Odds are, he'll hit 200 innings once in those three years.

 

Vazquez, of course, is coming off of his worst season since coming into the league. However, unlike Pavano, he's the model of consistency. You know what you're going to get with this guy. In his 13 big league seasons, he's pitched 200 innings in 9 of them. The other 4 seasons have all been between 150-200 IP. This is the guy we want.

 

If salaries were the same, I'd take Vazquez over Pavano 10 out of 10 times.

 

 

IP/G is the statistic you look at, not IP overall.

 

And I dont care about his career so much as I care about his recent career. And last season he was an innings eater.

 

It's risk-reward. Play it safe with Vazquez and probably get what Vazquez has given often in his career, maybe be dominant. Or take Pavano, hope he performs like last year.

 

 

Why do you dislike Nolasco then? He's a statistical innings eater. Both career-wise, and recent.

 

 

 

vazquez is going to be consistently incosistent, with high strikeout totals. meaning he will go out and get lit up 1 of every 5 starts. pavano has more consistently solid "stuff", and does not get the strikeout totals. Honestly i think pavano would be helpful for vostad, but i don't think that is enough of a reason to sign a guy for 3 years.

 

 

Why is Pavano considered to be more "consistent" around here? His career #'s prove otherwise. He's as inconsistent, if not more inconsistent, than the Nolasco's/Vazquez's of the world, yet he's asking for more money because he's coming off a good year at the age of 34.

 

Someone...please look at Pavano's career #'s. He's only had 2 really good seasons in his big league career. 2004 (as a Marlin) and 2010. That's it. The rest of the years he's had an ERA over 4 (often times high 4, etc.)

 

Stop calling Pavano consistent, if you're going to call Nolasco/Vazquez inconsistent. Pavano is not consistent, and is the worst pitcher/most injury-prone pitcher of the 3 (who will probably be the most highly paid, as well).

Give me Vasqeuz, please. Cheaper, and IMO, going to be better next season than Pavano.

Carl Pavano is not an innings eater. He may have averaged 7.0 IP/start last season, but he's not an innings eater. In 12 big league seasons, he's exceeded 200 IP three times. In 2009 he tallied 199.1 IP, so we'll even give him the benefit of the doubt. 12 big league seasons, 4 at 200 IP, 4 between 100-136 IP, and 4 at less than 100 IP. No thanks, not for $11 mil per over three years. Odds are, he'll hit 200 innings once in those three years.

 

Vazquez, of course, is coming off of his worst season since coming into the league. However, unlike Pavano, he's the model of consistency. You know what you're going to get with this guy. In his 13 big league seasons, he's pitched 200 innings in 9 of them. The other 4 seasons have all been between 150-200 IP. This is the guy we want.

 

If salaries were the same, I'd take Vazquez over Pavano 10 out of 10 times.

 

 

IP/G is the statistic you look at, not IP overall.

 

And I dont care about his career so much as I care about his recent career. And last season he was an innings eater.

 

It's risk-reward. Play it safe with Vazquez and probably get what Vazquez has given often in his career, maybe be dominant. Or take Pavano, hope he performs like last year.

 

 

Why do you dislike Nolasco then? He's a statistical innings eater. Both career-wise, and recent.

 

 

 

vazquez is going to be consistently incosistent, with high strikeout totals. meaning he will go out and get lit up 1 of every 5 starts. pavano has more consistently solid "stuff", and does not get the strikeout totals. Honestly i think pavano would be helpful for vostad, but i don't think that is enough of a reason to sign a guy for 3 years.

 

 

Why is Pavano considered to be more "consistent" around here? His career #'s prove otherwise. He's as inconsistent, if not more inconsistent, than the Nolasco's/Vazquez's of the world, yet he's asking for more money because he's coming off a good year at the age of 34.

 

Someone...please look at Pavano's career #'s. He's only had 2 really good seasons in his big league career. 2004 (as a Marlin) and 2010. That's it. The rest of the years he's had an ERA over 4 (often times high 4, etc.)

 

Stop calling Pavano consistent, if you're going to call Nolasco/Vazquez inconsistent. Pavano is not consistent, and is the worst pitcher/most injury-prone pitcher of the 3 (who will probably be the most highly paid, as well).

 

 

looking a little deeper at his stats game by game results of last season, Carl Pavano was every bit as inconsistent as Ricky, and Vazquez. which means you are completely right, Why are we even considering spending money on a worse pitcher?

Carl Pavano is not an innings eater. He may have averaged 7.0 IP/start last season, but he's not an innings eater. In 12 big league seasons, he's exceeded 200 IP three times. In 2009 he tallied 199.1 IP, so we'll even give him the benefit of the doubt. 12 big league seasons, 4 at 200 IP, 4 between 100-136 IP, and 4 at less than 100 IP. No thanks, not for $11 mil per over three years. Odds are, he'll hit 200 innings once in those three years.

 

Vazquez, of course, is coming off of his worst season since coming into the league. However, unlike Pavano, he's the model of consistency. You know what you're going to get with this guy. In his 13 big league seasons, he's pitched 200 innings in 9 of them. The other 4 seasons have all been between 150-200 IP. This is the guy we want.

 

If salaries were the same, I'd take Vazquez over Pavano 10 out of 10 times.

 

 

IP/G is the statistic you look at, not IP overall.

 

And I dont care about his career so much as I care about his recent career. And last season he was an innings eater.

 

It's risk-reward. Play it safe with Vazquez and probably get what Vazquez has given often in his career, maybe be dominant. Or take Pavano, hope he performs like last year.

 

Apparently we have different ideas of what an "innings eater" is. And without an actual written in stone definition, there's bound to be gray area. But, c'mon...Are you going to sit there and tell me that Pavano was an "innings eater" those seasons he only pitched 75 innings? By your definition, a guy could start 3 games for a total of 24.0 innings over the course of an entire season and average 8.0 IP/G and he'd earn the label "innings eater" for "eating" a whopping 24.0 innings the entire season. I'm not buying it. Carl Pavano led MLB with 7 complete games last year, 5 more than he's ever pitched in 11 other seasons. With that statistical anomaly, he averaged 6.9 IP/G. Don't count on him replicating that next year.

Carl Pavano is not an innings eater. He may have averaged 7.0 IP/start last season, but he's not an innings eater. In 12 big league seasons, he's exceeded 200 IP three times. In 2009 he tallied 199.1 IP, so we'll even give him the benefit of the doubt. 12 big league seasons, 4 at 200 IP, 4 between 100-136 IP, and 4 at less than 100 IP. No thanks, not for $11 mil per over three years. Odds are, he'll hit 200 innings once in those three years.

 

Vazquez, of course, is coming off of his worst season since coming into the league. However, unlike Pavano, he's the model of consistency. You know what you're going to get with this guy. In his 13 big league seasons, he's pitched 200 innings in 9 of them. The other 4 seasons have all been between 150-200 IP. This is the guy we want.

 

If salaries were the same, I'd take Vazquez over Pavano 10 out of 10 times.

 

 

IP/G is the statistic you look at, not IP overall.

 

And I dont care about his career so much as I care about his recent career. And last season he was an innings eater.

 

It's risk-reward. Play it safe with Vazquez and probably get what Vazquez has given often in his career, maybe be dominant. Or take Pavano, hope he performs like last year.

 

Apparently we have different ideas of what an "innings eater" is. And without an actual written in stone definition, there's bound to be gray area. But, c'mon...Are you going to sit there and tell me that Pavano was an "innings eater" those seasons he only pitched 75 innings? By your definition, a guy could start 3 games for a total of 24.0 innings over the course of an entire season and average 8.0 IP/G and he'd earn the label "innings eater" for "eating" a whopping 24.0 innings the entire season. I'm not buying it. Carl Pavano led MLB with 7 complete games last year, 5 more than he's ever pitched in 11 other seasons. With that statistical anomaly, he averaged 6.9 IP/G. Don't count on him replicating that next year.

Well, I'm guessing he means since he came back from injury a few years back. In the last two years he's been 19th in innings pitched in baseball.

 

I like Pavano but if it's true that he wants 3 years, I rather not have him.

Also, my problem with Vazquez is that you don't know what you'll get, you know what he would have given you a few years ago. His fastball speed has dropped every year over the last few and he's not even touching 90 anymore. His changeup and slider are losing movement.

Don't want Pavano. Have a feeling he's a guy who is coming off a good year who will implode and cause whichever team signs him to regret ever giving him such a contract.

 

Javier Vazquez is meh to me. Wouldn't be terrible to sign him, but I'm not going to be jumping up and down acting like we won the championship if we do. Not the #2 starter I was thinking of the Marlins trying to get.

 

We need a lefty pitcher, and probably one of the best ones in free agency outside of Cliff Lee will be Jorge De La Rosa. Hopefully he won't be TOO expensive, but my opinion is either use the money to sign JDLR, or go trade/sign a CFer and leave the rotation as it is.

Also, my problem with Vazquez is that you don't know what you'll get, you know what he would have given you a few years ago. His fastball speed has dropped every year over the last few and he's not even touching 90 anymore. His changeup and slider are losing movement.

 

 

I agree. As I've said, his "stuff" hasn't been the same.

Javier Vazquez's fastball speed is what worries me. I think it's as big a risk as Pavano.

Vazquez is an improvement on Sanabia or Volstad, and it allows you to push Sanabia into the bullpen. That's worth the $6 mil he'll likely make. Even with the dip in fastball velocity, he's a safe bet to give us a lot of innings and he'll give us a low 4 era.

Vazquez is an improvement on Sanabia or Volstad, and it allows you to push Sanabia into the bullpen. That's worth the $6 mil he'll likely make. Even with the dip in fastball velocity, he's a safe bet to give us a lot of innings and he'll give us a low 4 era.

 

 

 

That's not necessarily worth 6 million, considering there are probably guys cheaper than 6 mill, who that can be said for, as well. (specifically the "improvement over Sanabia" part)

Carl Pavano is not an innings eater. He may have averaged 7.0 IP/start last season, but he's not an innings eater. In 12 big league seasons, he's exceeded 200 IP three times. In 2009 he tallied 199.1 IP, so we'll even give him the benefit of the doubt. 12 big league seasons, 4 at 200 IP, 4 between 100-136 IP, and 4 at less than 100 IP. No thanks, not for $11 mil per over three years. Odds are, he'll hit 200 innings once in those three years.

 

Vazquez, of course, is coming off of his worst season since coming into the league. However, unlike Pavano, he's the model of consistency. You know what you're going to get with this guy. In his 13 big league seasons, he's pitched 200 innings in 9 of them. The other 4 seasons have all been between 150-200 IP. This is the guy we want.

 

If salaries were the same, I'd take Vazquez over Pavano 10 out of 10 times.

 

 

IP/G is the statistic you look at, not IP overall.

 

And I dont care about his career so much as I care about his recent career. And last season he was an innings eater.

 

It's risk-reward. Play it safe with Vazquez and probably get what Vazquez has given often in his career, maybe be dominant. Or take Pavano, hope he performs like last year.

 

 

Why do you dislike Nolasco then? He's a statistical innings eater. Both career-wise, and recent.

 

Pavano is Nolasco shifted with a better track record. Didnt allow as many runs and went deeper into games. And Nolasco was hit or miss on certain occasions. So was Pavano, but to a much much lesser extent. What Pavano did 10 times last season, Ricky probably did once or twice.

 

Ricky's inning eating comes a little like this:

 

4 innings

8 innings

6 innings

7 innings

4 innings

5 innings

 

etc. where he wont make it out of some games, and he'll go deep into others. Pavano, even on a bad game, almost always made it to the 6th inning or later last season. I can count 3 occasions where Pavano was chased early. I can count 7 where Ricky was chased early. I can count 10 games where Ricky made it to the 10th or further, I can count 21 games that Pavano made it 7 innings or deeper.

 

I think having a guy performing like that makes Ricky Nolasco way, way more valuable to a point where I'd accept him as a contributing member to this team (because he's able to do what he does in the #4 spot rather than as a #2/3 pitcher)

And do those guys have the upside of Vazquez?

 

The reason I want him is I think he's a safe bet to get things done at a decent level for us and has a pretty good chance to break out into mid-3 to high-3 ERA. I don't think most of the guys available have that.

Vazquez is an improvement on Sanabia or Volstad, and it allows you to push Sanabia into the bullpen. That's worth the $6 mil he'll likely make. Even with the dip in fastball velocity, he's a safe bet to give us a lot of innings and he'll give us a low 4 era.

 

 

 

That's not necessarily worth 6 million, considering there are probably guys cheaper than 6 mill, who that can be said for, as well. (specifically the "improvement over Sanabia" part)

 

I think what he means is the fact that Vazquez will improve the rotation that had Sanabia in it, and Sanabia will improve the bullpen that didn't have him in it. At the same time, we improve our rotation some and obtain a new reliever. I'm not sure if it's worth 6M, but it's substantial.

Carl Pavano is not an innings eater. He may have averaged 7.0 IP/start last season, but he's not an innings eater. In 12 big league seasons, he's exceeded 200 IP three times. In 2009 he tallied 199.1 IP, so we'll even give him the benefit of the doubt. 12 big league seasons, 4 at 200 IP, 4 between 100-136 IP, and 4 at less than 100 IP. No thanks, not for $11 mil per over three years. Odds are, he'll hit 200 innings once in those three years.

 

Vazquez, of course, is coming off of his worst season since coming into the league. However, unlike Pavano, he's the model of consistency. You know what you're going to get with this guy. In his 13 big league seasons, he's pitched 200 innings in 9 of them. The other 4 seasons have all been between 150-200 IP. This is the guy we want.

 

If salaries were the same, I'd take Vazquez over Pavano 10 out of 10 times.

 

 

IP/G is the statistic you look at, not IP overall.

 

And I dont care about his career so much as I care about his recent career. And last season he was an innings eater.

 

It's risk-reward. Play it safe with Vazquez and probably get what Vazquez has given often in his career, maybe be dominant. Or take Pavano, hope he performs like last year.

 

Apparently we have different ideas of what an "innings eater" is. And without an actual written in stone definition, there's bound to be gray area. But, c'mon...Are you going to sit there and tell me that Pavano was an "innings eater" those seasons he only pitched 75 innings? By your definition, a guy could start 3 games for a total of 24.0 innings over the course of an entire season and average 8.0 IP/G and he'd earn the label "innings eater" for "eating" a whopping 24.0 innings the entire season. I'm not buying it. Carl Pavano led MLB with 7 complete games last year, 5 more than he's ever pitched in 11 other seasons. With that statistical anomaly, he averaged 6.9 IP/G. Don't count on him replicating that next year.

Well, I'm guessing he means since he came back from injury a few years back. In the last two years he's been 19th in innings pitched in baseball.

 

I like Pavano but if it's true that he wants 3 years, I rather not have him.

 

I agree that Pavano does give me that iffy feeling as though he's one of those contract year players... I'd hope that's not the case but obviously history tells us otherwise.

 

And in my definition of being an inning eater, it's how he performs every game while he is in the rotation. You could look at it both ways, but when signing a free agent I would never 'expect' him to get injured. When he pitches, he often preserves a bullpen.

And do those guys have the upside of Vazquez?

 

The reason I want him is I think he's a safe bet to get things done at a decent level for us and has a pretty good chance to break out into mid-3 to high-3 ERA. I don't think most of the guys available have that.

 

 

 

Vazquez also has downside, which for the amount of money he's going to be paid will be risky.

 

He's aging, and his stuff isn't the same. Stuff matters...a lot. He's always been prone to giving up the long ball for the majority of his career. That will likely go down in the NL, though. However, there's a cause for concern with him, too. His K/9 wasn't the same last year due to his stuff regressing (when he's dominant, it's because of the K's), and another cause for concern is that he's normally a very good control pitcher (2.4 BB/9 career), but his walk total increased a lot last year (3.7 BB/9 is the highest of his career).

 

It would definitely be a risky contract, and I don't see how he's a guaranteed low 4 ERA guy. The BB/9 actually scares me more than the stuff regressing. I don't know if that's a fluke, or if it's a case of him just simply not being the same pitcher anymore (then again, he was pretty dominant in the NL as recent as 2009, so it could have been a bad year...idk).

Vazquez is an improvement on Sanabia or Volstad, and it allows you to push Sanabia into the bullpen. That's worth the $6 mil he'll likely make. Even with the dip in fastball velocity, he's a safe bet to give us a lot of innings and he'll give us a low 4 era.

 

 

 

That's not necessarily worth 6 million, considering there are probably guys cheaper than 6 mill, who that can be said for, as well. (specifically the "improvement over Sanabia" part)

 

I think what he means is the fact that Vazquez will improve the rotation that had Sanabia in it, and Sanabia will improve the bullpen that didn't have him in it. At the same time, we improve our rotation some and obtain a new reliever. I'm not sure if it's worth 6M, but it's substantial.

 

 

And that's what I mean.