SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,799
|
Post by nomar on Jun 17, 2015 17:08:38 GMT -5
Hanley is DH bound without doubt, so if we don't think DVB could handle 1B I doubt we'd give chase.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 20, 2015 11:32:35 GMT -5
Ive noticed when it comes to buying, we keep hearing "you have to give to get" and when it comes to selling, we keep hearing "don't expect anything."
Which one is it? There is no harm in shopping Buchholz and teams in the past have absolutely overpaid with prospects at the deadline. Conversely there are numerous examples of teams getting pretty good rentals for not a lot.
I think its a mistake to deal in absolutes, there are a lot of desperate/bad GMs out there.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 20, 2015 12:14:51 GMT -5
Buch is a guy I want to keep unless we're blown away. Sometimes a GM trades Zach Wheeler for two months of Beltran though so your right. Buch is affordable and has a 13 and 13.5 option the next two years. He'd be appealing to a lot of teams but I think we can contend next year with jumps from our young guys and more consistent D.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 23, 2015 13:36:09 GMT -5
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,417
|
Post by ianrs on Jun 23, 2015 15:01:54 GMT -5
I might will throw something if we trade Buchholz for Baez. K rate hovering around 30%, BB rate around 4-7%? I know he's young, but I really think he's the next Brandon Wood. And Wood walked more than Baez in the minor leagues. FYI, Wood's numbers in the major leagues over 751 plate appearances: .186/.225/.289 triple slash, .228 wOBA, 36 wRC+
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 23, 2015 15:20:53 GMT -5
I might will throw something if we trade Buchholz for Baez. K rate hovering around 30%, BB rate around 4-7%? I know he's young, but I really think he's the next Brandon Wood. And Wood walked more than Baez in the minor leagues. FYI, Wood's numbers in the major leagues over 751 plate appearances: .186/.225/.289 triple slash, .228 wOBA, 36 wRC+ or the next WMB.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,799
|
Post by nomar on Jun 23, 2015 19:35:59 GMT -5
Baez is so much better than WMB, that's unfair. His hit tool is much better despite their shared K troubles. Plenty of players strike out a lot and remain productive. I think Baez has the elite bat speed to enable him to hit plenty after adjusting, which admittedly may take a while. Im a believer in him though.
There's room at 3B/LF for Baez next year as Napoli is likely gone. Buccholz is completely inconsistent. If we're out of it I would have no problem moving him mid season. It would be expensive, but you could fill Buchholz's spot through FA and potentially have a cost controlled, serious RH power bat, which is at a premium today.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 23, 2015 22:16:22 GMT -5
I might will throw something if we trade Buchholz for Baez. K rate hovering around 30%, BB rate around 4-7%? I know he's young, but I really think he's the next Brandon Wood. And Wood walked more than Baez in the minor leagues. FYI, Wood's numbers in the major leagues over 751 plate appearances: .186/.225/.289 triple slash, .228 wOBA, 36 wRC+ or the next WMB. Or maybe the next WMP. Which stands for Wily Mo Pena. That guy had some serious power, struck out a lot, didn't walk much, and couldn't hit consistently. Of course the other thing that hung him was that he was a brutal outfielder.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan4life on Jun 24, 2015 8:53:37 GMT -5
To me even if Buchholz pitches well,there will always be concerns about his health and whether he can stay healthy for a few years as well as be able to give them the innings they need from a stater.They have many question marks as it is with Miley,Kelly and Porcello but I am sure a contending team would take Buchholz if they need a starter.Probably the only player they will get something for.
|
|
|
Post by justen on Jun 25, 2015 8:03:35 GMT -5
Royals are another team who could certainly find interest in Buchholz, depending on whether they feel the need to upgrade its rotation over potentially improving its bullpen or infield. The Royals system though, isn't very strong and probably isn't a match to net a strong return. I'm all for keeping Buchholz as part of this rotation if we can't genuinely maximize the return. He has the experience necessary to at least lead our younger arms in the right direction as far as handling the pressure of pitching in Boston. FWIW, fangraphs article on state of Royals rotation, who are in a good position to cement their playoff hopes with the right acquisition: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-badly-do-the-royals-really-need-a-starting-pitcher/
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Jun 27, 2015 19:57:02 GMT -5
The Pirates want another pitcher. Buchholz for Tyler Glasnow and an intriguing second low-A arm. If the Sox are going to trade Buch, with his cushy contracts and the way he's pitched this year, they'd better get a top-30 prospect back. Maybe they could add another piece and squeeze Taillon out since he's post-injury. Or heck, try for Austin Meadows...it would quiet down some of the "we shoulda gotten him instead of Trey Ball" howling. Dealing with Teams like Pitt, who say they are small market, can be a chore asking for any prospect. But yes, Tallion, Glasnow look good as does Keller and Josh Bell 1B. Season is over. Time to build for 16 and time to dump all dead weight.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,799
|
Post by nomar on Jun 27, 2015 20:43:54 GMT -5
The Pirates want another pitcher. Buchholz for Tyler Glasnow and an intriguing second low-A arm. If the Sox are going to trade Buch, with his cushy contracts and the way he's pitched this year, they'd better get a top-30 prospect back. Maybe they could add another piece and squeeze Taillon out since he's post-injury. Or heck, try for Austin Meadows...it would quiet down some of the "we shoulda gotten him instead of Trey Ball" howling. Dealing with Teams like Pitt, who say they are small market, can be a chore asking for any prospect. But yes, Tallion, Glasnow look good as does Keller and Josh Bell 1B. Season is over. Time to build for 16 and time to dump all dead weight. I've always been confused with the Bell love, especially at 1B. He just doesn't hit for enough power. The K rate is great though, and he has the frame of a 25 HR guy. Glasnow is someone I don't think they would trade. I'd take him for Buccholz in a heartbeat though.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 28, 2015 0:35:40 GMT -5
Dealing with Teams like Pitt, who say they are small market, can be a chore asking for any prospect. But yes, Tallion, Glasnow look good as does Keller and Josh Bell 1B. Season is over. Time to build for 16 and time to dump all dead weight. I've always been confused with the Bell love, especially at 1B. He just doesn't hit for enough power. The K rate is great though, and he has the frame of a 25 HR guy. Glasnow is someone I don't think they would trade. I'd take him for Buccholz in a heartbeat though. Yeah, I highly doubt that they'd give up Glasnow, but Buchholz has a very team-friendly deal and 1a/2 legitimate upside. He also returns a comp pick if his options are picked up. If Pittsburgh is in it, and think they need another high-quality starter to get by St Louis in the playoffs, they might be persuaded. Taillon is more available I'm sure, but not nearly enough for Buchholz. Put this way: Buchholz has a better history than Samardzija and arguably a favorable contract, and Samardzija netted Addison Russell (then a top 30) and Billy McKinney. So it's not impossible. At age 30, he's probably a more desirable trade target than Cole Hamels, who has 3-4 times the salary commitment with WAY less flexibility, is a year older, and has pitched pretty similarly this year.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Jun 28, 2015 1:28:08 GMT -5
It's almost bitter-sweet to deal Buchholz because this is what he can be a very good 1a/#2. But at the same time he can be a disaster. IF the Royals, Pirates, Cardinals, Dodgers, Rangers, and/or Astros get into a bidding war and we can get blown away you do it. maybe even add someone like Nap to a Bucs deal for extra player or added prospect boost in a return.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jun 28, 2015 7:45:49 GMT -5
It's almost bitter-sweet to deal Buchholz because this is what he can be a very good 1a/#2. But at the same time he can be a disaster. IF the Royals, Pirates, Cardinals, Dodgers, Rangers, and/or Astros get into a bidding war and we can get blown away you do it. maybe even add someone like Nap to a Bucs deal for extra player or added prospect boost in a return. Trading Buchholz only makes sense if: 1. The Red Sox are ready to go all in on a top of the rotation starter, AND 2. They get a good return. In general Internet enthusiasts value prospects more than MLB GMs -- hoarding prospects is a great way to make your successor look like a genius. For example, I would seriously consider trading Buchholz for Kyle Scwarber, but not for Javier Baez. A deal for a package built around Kevin Gausman also might make sense. There is no pressure to trade Buchholz, and they should only do so if they get market value -- which is an elite prospect plus some lesser prospects. If that market doesn't materialize, a pitching staff headed by a big name free agent acquisition and followed by Buchholz, Rodriguez, Porcello (whom I don't think is as bad long-term as he's been the last five weeks) and Miley is more than good enough to compete for a wild card, even if the offense is only average.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 28, 2015 9:05:34 GMT -5
Put this way: Buchholz has a better history than Samardzija I don't know that this is true. Buchholz has clearly performed worse than Samardzija in the three-year window before each would be traded, and he has a much longer record of injury and other inconsistency. Keep in mind that Buchholz has never thrown a 200-inning season in his career and only reached 180 innings once. That inconsistency matters to risk-adverse teams who generally prefer bulk above-average innings to high-upside but low-ceiling. If we're being charitable, the comp that comes to mind is Josh Johnson (though the fact that he was traded with Reyes and Buehrle makes it hard to untangle what he would have been worth on his own). If we're not, the comp that comes to mind is Brandon McCarthy (albeit with a much better contractual situation).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 28, 2015 9:55:08 GMT -5
The Pirates want another pitcher. Buchholz for Tyler Glasnow and an intriguing second low-A arm. If the Sox are going to trade Buch, with his cushy contracts and the way he's pitched this year, they'd better get a top-30 prospect back. Maybe they could add another piece and squeeze Taillon out since he's post-injury. Or heck, try for Austin Meadows...it would quiet down some of the "we shoulda gotten him instead of Trey Ball" howling. Dealing with Teams like Pitt, who say they are small market, can be a chore asking for any prospect. But yes, Tallion, Glasnow look good as does Keller and Josh Bell 1B. Season is over. Time to build for 16 and time to dump all dead weight. How is Buchholz dead weight? Maybe you mean that it's time to trade all the good players that other teams would be interested in. Most teams don't want dead weight.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 28, 2015 18:58:55 GMT -5
Trading Buchholz only makes sense if: 1. The Red Sox are ready to go all in on a top of the rotation starter, AND 2. They get a good return. I agree with 2 but not 1 (at least not this season). If you are trading Buchholz, you are writing off this season. You then get his successor in the offseason. In general Internet enthusiasts value prospects more than MLB GMs -- hoarding prospects is a great way to make your successor look like a genius. For example, I would seriously consider trading Buchholz for Kyle Scwarber, but not for Javier Baez. A deal for a package built around Kevin Gausman also might make sense. There is no pressure to trade Buchholz, and they should only do so if they get market value -- which is an elite prospect plus some lesser prospects. If that market doesn't materialize, a pitching staff headed by a big name free agent acquisition and followed by Buchholz, Rodriguez, Porcello (whom I don't think is as bad long-term as he's been the last five weeks) and Miley is more than good enough to compete for a wild card, even if the offense is only average. I agree with both general thoughts, although (as I noted) once you decide to trade Buchholz they should (1) be a seller only during the season, (2) strive to get below the luxury tax threshold this year to open up flexibility to go above the threshold next year with the least negative consequences and (3) create as much flexibility for offseason moves as practicable. Assuming the Red Sox are still 8-9 games back at the ASB, I believe that they should communicate to teams that they are auctioning Buchholz to the highest bidder.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 28, 2015 19:18:06 GMT -5
BTW, top 100 prospects for selected teams:
Royals (leads ALC by 5.5) - Mondesi (33), Manaea (45), Zimmer (47), Finnegan (62), Almonte (69) Pirates (leads NLWC by 1.0/2.0) - Glasnow (10), Taillon (25), Bell (28), Meadows (37), McGuire (52), Kingham (61, TJ), Hanson (77) Cardinals (leads NLC by 8.5) - Piscotty (75), Gonzales (86), Reyes (87) Dodgers (leads NLW by 1.0) - Seager (5), Urias (6), Holmes (79), De Leon (94, but likely to move into the midseason top 50) Astros (leads ALW by 4.0) - Correa (2), Appel (24), Santana (58), Velasquez (71), Feliz (85), Phillips (95) Rangers (trails ALW by 5.0, ALWC by 3.0) - Gallo (8), Alfaro (36), Mazara (44), Thompson (68), Gonzalez (81) Twins (trails ALC by 5.5, ALWC by 0.5) - Buxton (1), Sano (9), Meyer (23), Berrios (26), Gordon (27), Stewart (29), Cubs (trails NLWC by 1.0/2.0) - Edwards (38), Schwarber (40), Almora (46), Torres (90), McKinney (97), Underwood (99) + Baez
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jun 28, 2015 23:17:51 GMT -5
I would only be happy with a Buchholz trade if the return is clearly more than what it would take to acquire a frontline to mid-rotation starter with two or more years of control in the next offseason. The ideal scenario of a Buchholz trade is to get in return a young arm that is MLB ready or near MLB ready, such as Heaney or Severino, and more. Then in the offseason trade from the prospect depth for a SP, as in the Miley deal (for a better arm than Miley, though).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 29, 2015 22:14:59 GMT -5
Put this way: Buchholz has a better history than Samardzija I don't know that this is true. Buchholz has clearly performed worse than Samardzija in the three-year window before each would be traded, and he has a much longer record of injury and other inconsistency. Keep in mind that Buchholz has never thrown a 200-inning season in his career and only reached 180 innings once. That inconsistency matters to risk-adverse teams who generally prefer bulk above-average innings to high-upside but low-ceiling. If we're being charitable, the comp that comes to mind is Josh Johnson (though the fact that he was traded with Reyes and Buehrle makes it hard to untangle what he would have been worth on his own). If we're not, the comp that comes to mind is Brandon McCarthy (albeit with a much better contractual situation). That's debatable. The NL on average suppresses ERA by about a quarter of a run. And the three-year window is not their entire pitching history, even if on the surface it is most apropos. Any team dealing for Buchholz is gambling on that 17-win season or a full year of 2013. Samardzija had an excellent year last year, but he's never had a run like Buch's 2013. I'd say it's close, but I still think, in total, Buchholz has had superior career performance. Go ahead and compare career lines. He also has a favorable contract, which mitigates the injury issues.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 29, 2015 22:44:28 GMT -5
Let's compare: Clay Buchholz (age 30): 2.5 years of team control, (prorated) $12m, $13m club option, $13.5m club option Past three years: 466.2 IP, 3.99 ERA, 3.52 FIP, 3.78 xFIP Past year: 199.1 IP, 4.47 ERA, 3.30 FIP, 3.51 xFIP Jeff Samardzija (age 29): 1.5 years of team control, (prorated) $5.3m, arb3 ($9.8m) Past three years: 537.2 IP, 3.68 ERA, 3.51 FIP, 3.39 xFIP Past year: 208.1 IP, 4.10 ERA, 3.77 FIP, 3.52 xFIP Matt Garza (age 28): 3 years of team control, arb1, arb2, arb3 ($6m, $9.5m, $10.3m) Past three years: 592.1 IP, 3.86 ERA, 4.24 FIP, 4.29 xFIP Past year: 204.2 IP, 3.91 ERA, 4.42 FIP, 4.31 xFIP R.A. Dickey (age 38): 4 years of team control, $5m, $12m, $12m, $13m Past three years: 616.2 IP, 2.95 ERA, 3.55 FIP, 3.64 xFIP Past year: 233.2 IP, 2.73 ERA, 3.27 FIP, 3.27 xFIP The big difference is with regards to innings pitched, and Buchholz has generally been worse on the field as well (Garza is the exception, but that is another one of those outlier deals that was widely panned at the time). The point is well taken that there might always be a team out there willing to overpay and that teams have done just that, but I think Buchholz is legitimately a step down from those three, and I'd expect the offers the Red Sox get for him to reflect that. If a team out there is willing to overpay with a top-30-type prospect/young player at a position of need (1B, SP, maybe 3B or corner outfield) or multiple top-75-type prospects? Of course I'd consider it. I'm just skeptical that that sort of offer is out there. Buchholz, based on the past year's advanced metrics, fits right in the middle. Dickey is a knuckleballer who had a career year totally out of line with his history. Salaries for pitchers have exploded, so the dollar values you presented could at least have been normalized, say to calculated $/WAR values. Otherwise, you're misrepresenting economic reality. I think you're way under-rating Buchholz. For one, teams aren't just paying for past performance, they're betting on future performance. They're *gambling*. That Buchholz has team options (he can be dumped if he underperforms, and it increases his trade value since any team is only on the hook for a year, max) is a huge lure, particularly as he's passing his prime towards the end of the deal, and given his injury history. Furthermore, he clearly has the best stuff of that group. Easily. Some team's pitching coach, manager, trainer, GM, etc are going to think they can get him to harness it consistently, if just for a stretch run. His upside is as good as, or higher than, any of them, even Dickey. Comparing numbers just doesn't even begin to come to the crux of Buchholz, because he's always been defined by the "numbers that weren't." Catch lightning in a bottle with Buchholz, and you get a legitimate *ace*-caliber (and I mean ace, not #1 starter) pitcher. Dickey comes the closest to resembling Buchholz in that way, but as a 38-y/o knuckleballer, it's not a great comparison. A team that takes your mindset and focuses on injuries, yeah, they won't make much of an offer. But I think somebody out there is going to think they're getting Houston Randy Johnson or Detroit Doyle Alexander, plus a couple years of a solid 2, and they're going to be willing to pay to play.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 29, 2015 22:51:27 GMT -5
Jmei, I'll put it this way: you make a compelling, rational case for your viewpoint. I just think it's highly unlikely that all 20 or so teams in the hunt are going to adopt that viewpoint, and I question (though I'm on the fence) as to whether it might be a minority view. It's a great set of data to present the Sox with if you're the team making an offer and you wanna lowball them...but all it takes is one team to come around offering more (see, Baltimore vs. Detroit, Andrew Miller 2014), and your argument is out the window. Then it comes down to...how much are you willing to gamble? My guess is that there are plenty of GMs who'd be gamblers when the auction starts.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 29, 2015 23:07:58 GMT -5
I don't think contending teams at the deadline really want high-risk high-reward type players. They usually want the opposite-- a sure thing that fills a hole in the roster.
But yeah, it only takes one ***hole, as they say. Even still, how many contending teams can afford to part with MLB-readyish talent well-regarded enough at a position of need for the Red Sox? That's an honest question, btw. It's going to take a lot more than Baez for me to pull the trigger.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 30, 2015 0:40:33 GMT -5
Or maybe the next WMP. Which stands for Wily Mo Pena. That guy had some serious power, struck out a lot, didn't walk much, and couldn't hit consistently. Of course the other thing that hung him was that he was a brutal outfielder. Having recently used a Wily Mo reference, this warmed my heart.
|
|
|