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.
|
Post by jmei on Jul 6, 2015 12:37:34 GMT -5
If the front office's decision-making process is driven by WEEI callers, they've got bigger problems than whether or not to trade Buchholz.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2015 12:40:55 GMT -5
If the front office's decision-making process is driven by WEEI callers, they've got bigger problems than whether or not to trade Buchholz. If it's a 50-50 call, that could sway the decision.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 6, 2015 12:52:37 GMT -5
If the front office's decision-making process is driven by WEEI callers, they've got bigger problems than whether or not to trade Buchholz. If it's a 50-50 call, that could sway the decision. Sadly , I agree with this. Those callers go too games and watch or listen on media. The drive in past years has been at the casual fan. The thinking is the diehards will always be there. The Don and Jerry nonsense shows that. We can argue the definition of diehards ,but us older fans can tell you, some serious fans can, and will go away. The 1994 strike , and the poor play of the early and mid 60's are evidence. I still hope they move Clay B ,but it will come at a cost fan wise.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2015 14:21:50 GMT -5
If it's a 50-50 call, that could sway the decision. Sadly , I agree with this. Those callers go too games and watch or listen on media. The drive in past years has been at the casual fan. The thinking is the diehards will always be there. The Don and Jerry nonsense shows that. We can argue the definition of diehards ,but us older fans can tell you, some serious fans can, and will go away. The 1994 strike , and the poor play of the early and mid 60's are evidence. I still hope they move Clay B ,but it will come at a cost fan wise. I was away from 94-2004. The strike killed everything for me, only to be resurrected by the miracle of 04. If I were a fan of another team, I'd probably still be away. Next time it happens, I'm probably done with sports. But it won't be the decisions of this Red Sox team that will push me away.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 6, 2015 14:29:10 GMT -5
Sadly , I agree with this. Those callers go too games and watch or listen on media. The drive in past years has been at the casual fan. The thinking is the diehards will always be there. The Don and Jerry nonsense shows that. We can argue the definition of diehards ,but us older fans can tell you, some serious fans can, and will go away. The 1994 strike , and the poor play of the early and mid 60's are evidence. I still hope they move Clay B ,but it will come at a cost fan wise. I was away from 94-2004. The strike killed everything for me, only to be resurrected by the miracle of 04. If I were a fan of another team, I'd probably still be away. Next time it happens, I'm probably done with sports. But it won't be the decisions of this Red Sox team that will push me away. And you are clearly a serious fan. The Sox have to consider this. As Smart as jmei is, I think he's wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 6, 2015 14:53:05 GMT -5
The Red Sox management have been pretty steadfast in making what they believe is the right move, even if it is not popular. Trading and not signing Lester is a prime example. Now I would agree that they will probably be more aggressive in their strategy, but isn't close to a definitive factor in their FO operations.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2015 15:22:40 GMT -5
I brought it up because trading Buchholz or not by July 31st is not something that the entire future of the franchise is dependent on. So I think they really need to be far out of the race to make that decision. Worst thing that happens by not trading is that they have him for two more seasons. You can probably extend this to the entire decision of buy/sell since they don't have much to sell off anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 6, 2015 17:38:21 GMT -5
I think that the Red Sox are absolutely driven by one thing: making a profit.
The best way to make a profit is to get rears in the seats.
The best way to get rears in the seats is to win.
The best way to ensure winning the most often is to have a long-term strategy.
Sports talk radio callers likely consider none of the above.
I'm pretty sure that the Red Sox ownership knows and believes in all of the above.
Now, you can certainly quibble with what the strategy is - I'm not saying their decisions are unassailable - but I sincerely do not think that the Red Sox are driven by what the fans will think of a given transaction. They know if a move works out, it won't matter what fans thought at the time.
Slight exception here for things like, say, a potential David Ortiz trade and the like, but as a general proposition, my point is that Johnny Radiocaller isn't affecting Ben Cherington.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 6, 2015 18:10:15 GMT -5
Sadly , I agree with this. Those callers go too games and watch or listen on media. The drive in past years has been at the casual fan. The thinking is the diehards will always be there. The Don and Jerry nonsense shows that. We can argue the definition of diehards ,but us older fans can tell you, some serious fans can, and will go away. The 1994 strike , and the poor play of the early and mid 60's are evidence. I still hope they move Clay B ,but it will come at a cost fan wise. I was away from 94-2004. The strike killed everything for me, only to be resurrected by the miracle of 04. If I were a fan of another team, I'd probably still be away. Next time it happens, I'm probably done with sports. But it won't be the decisions of this Red Sox team that will push me away. You missed Pedro?? LOL
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 6, 2015 18:14:00 GMT -5
I was away from 94-2004. The strike killed everything for me, only to be resurrected by the miracle of 04. If I were a fan of another team, I'd probably still be away. Next time it happens, I'm probably done with sports. But it won't be the decisions of this Red Sox team that will push me away. You missed Pedro?? LOL I did, a lot of it.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 6, 2015 18:27:53 GMT -5
No wonder you think Buchholz is good:)
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,799
|
Post by nomar on Jul 6, 2015 19:15:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 6, 2015 22:13:45 GMT -5
I think that the Red Sox are absolutely driven by one thing: making a profit. The best way to make a profit is to get rears in the seats. The best way to get rears in the seats is to win. The best way to ensure winning the most often is to have a long-term strategy. Sports talk radio callers likely consider none of the above. I'm pretty sure that the Red Sox ownership knows and believes in all of the above. Now, you can certainly quibble with what the strategy is - I'm not saying their decisions are unassailable - but I sincerely do not think that the Red Sox are driven by what the fans will think of a given transaction. They know if a move works out, it won't matter what fans thought at the time. Slight exception here for things like, say, a potential David Ortiz trade and the like, but as a general proposition, my point is that Johnny Radiocaller isn't affecting Ben Cherington. Brilliantly and succinctly stated. The "pizzazz" days of Gonzalez/Crawford decision-making are done. Lesson learned, and probably even Lucchino agrees. Edit: I'm glad, too. I like that BC has a vision, and I think it's going to bear fruit, although it may take what becomes a painful couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 6, 2015 22:20:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 7, 2015 13:13:38 GMT -5
I'm quite torn over Buchholz. On the one hand, he's been pretty outstanding all year (2.55 FIP, with just some rotten early-season luck tarnishing his ERA). On the other, his trade value has probably never been higher, and it keeps going up. I want to believe he's turned a corner and has become the consistent, outstanding pitcher his stuff always suggested...and then I really want him around to front the rotation now and in the future, especially given how he worked with Rodriguez over pitch-tipping. But...what if a package of, say, Buchholz/Margot/Johnson/Dubon returned Chris Sale? Or Buchholz alone returned Glasnow or Taillon/Meadows? Or Seager?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,799
|
Post by nomar on Jul 7, 2015 13:48:54 GMT -5
I'm quite torn over Buchholz. On the one hand, he's been pretty outstanding all year (2.55 FIP, with just some rotten early-season luck tarnishing his ERA). On the other, his trade value has probably never been higher, and it keeps going up. I want to believe he's turned a corner and has become the consistent, outstanding pitcher his stuff always suggested...and then I really want him around to front the rotation now and in the future, especially given how he worked with Rodriguez over pitch-tipping. But...what if a package of, say, Buchholz/Margot/Johnson/Dubon returned Chris Sale? Or Buchholz alone returned Glasnow or Taillon/Meadows? Or Seager? if that got Chris Sale, party at my place.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Jul 7, 2015 15:32:14 GMT -5
If the Sox are out of it by the deadline and they can get what they want for Buch (presuming a near ready SP) I think they deal him. Next year he could be more Jekyll than Hyde again. He is replaceable. ERod, Porcello, Miley, Owens & Johnson or SP acquired through trade should all be in the rotation by next year. I am much higher on Owens than a lot of others seem to be but IMO he is the guy who could replace Clay.
None of the above may be a #1 but Clay is not really either. Don't think losing him would hurt 2016 chances as much as losing Lester hurt 2015.
If they can't get exactly what they want for him there is no reason to deal him though.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 7, 2015 15:46:33 GMT -5
If the Sox are out of it by the deadline and they can get what they want for Buch (presuming a near ready SP) I think they deal him. Next year he could be more Jekyll than Hyde again. He is replaceable. ERod, Porcello, Miley, Owens & Johnson or SP acquired through trade should all be in the rotation by next year. I am much higher on Owens than a lot of others seem to be but IMO he is the guy who could replace Clay. None of the above may be a #1 but Clay is not really either. Don't think losing him would hurt 2016 chances as much as losing Lester hurt 2015. If they can't get exactly what they want for him there is no reason to deal him though. Losing Lester was not this team's problem IMO. He's been pretty bad with the Cubs, too. The guy had one great (half) year in Boston and a couple of very good years. He also had an atrocious year in 2012, and was barely league-average in 2013. He's a good pitcher but not a great one, by any stretch. Putting Owens and Johnson in the rotation for next year with no backup plan is a disaster waiting to happen, especially if Porcello isn't **much** better.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Jul 7, 2015 16:26:26 GMT -5
If the Sox are out of it by the deadline and they can get what they want for Buch (presuming a near ready SP) I think they deal him. Next year he could be more Jekyll than Hyde again. He is replaceable. ERod, Porcello, Miley, Owens & Johnson or SP acquired through trade should all be in the rotation by next year. I am much higher on Owens than a lot of others seem to be but IMO he is the guy who could replace Clay. None of the above may be a #1 but Clay is not really either. Don't think losing him would hurt 2016 chances as much as losing Lester hurt 2015. If they can't get exactly what they want for him there is no reason to deal him though. Losing Lester was not this team's problem IMO. He's been pretty bad with the Cubs, too. The guy had one great (half) year in Boston and a couple of very good years. He also had an atrocious year in 2012, and was barely league-average in 2013. He's a good pitcher but not a great one, by any stretch. Putting Owens and Johnson in the rotation for next year with no backup plan is a disaster waiting to happen, especially if Porcello isn't **much** better. No the disaster is what happened earlier this year. Or if the every other year Buchholz shows up again next year. 3.48 ERA is pretty bad pitcher huh? Lester is the kind of guy who can lead a staff part of what separates him. Again, Clay has been very good of late. He has a great contract. Sox would need to get exactly what they want otherwise it would make no sense to deal him.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 7, 2015 16:55:30 GMT -5
Losing Lester was not this team's problem IMO. He's been pretty bad with the Cubs, too. The guy had one great (half) year in Boston and a couple of very good years. He also had an atrocious year in 2012, and was barely league-average in 2013. He's a good pitcher but not a great one, by any stretch. Putting Owens and Johnson in the rotation for next year with no backup plan is a disaster waiting to happen, especially if Porcello isn't **much** better. No the disaster is what happened earlier this year. Or if the every other year Buchholz shows up again next year. 3.48 ERA is pretty bad pitcher huh? Lester is the kind of guy who can lead a staff part of what separates him. Again, Clay has been very good of late. He has a great contract. Sox would need to get exactly what they want otherwise it would make no sense to deal him. My mistake, you're right, Lester's been much better lately. Last time I looked was a couple weeks ago and his ERA and FIP were hovering around 4. Regardless, he's not and has never been a legitimate #1 any more than Clay has. Lester's a 1a/2 just like Cole Hamels. I'm sure you'd have lived for the Sox to drop 6/160 on Lester, but what if 2012 Lester showed up? I think it's going to be a lot harder to replace Buchholz than you're claiming. That doesn't mean I don't think they should trade him if the right deal comes along, but they'd need to get outstanding value for him, otherwise it's a waste. FWIW, Buchholz out-pitched Lester when Buch was healthy in 2013, and he's out-pitched him quite a bit this year (2.55 to 3.31 FIP). That's sandwiched around a terrible year for Buch in 2014 and a career one for Lester. Regardless, I think you're artificially inflating the difference between them. If you think Lester was hard to replace, this year's version of Buch will likely (the big ? being his continued performance at his current level) be just as hard. And if you're going to do it via FA (banking on Owens or Johnson to suddenly put up a 15-8, 3.25, 170H/200 IP line is totally unreasonable, though not impossible), you're talking about spending 6/$150M or so, when Clay will cost you 2/$26.5 and might theoretically take a team-friendly contract extension to finish his career here. That's $130M that can be spent making the team better in other ways...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 8, 2015 16:41:43 GMT -5
From the article guidas posted on the other forum. fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/07/08/buster-olney-on-mfb-red-sox-could-pursue-big-money-starter-in-the-offseason/For now, Olney said the the expectation of people he’s spoken to with other teams is that the Red Sox will keep Clay Buchholz because he’d be very difficult to replace. “When you look at it, where are you going to find in the trade market a guy pitching as well as Buchholz is pitching,” he said. “And not only is his salary — [$]13 million for next year, [$]13.5 million for the year after that — very reasonable, but also the whole option part of it where the team is essentially protected from any high-end risk because at some point after each of the next two years, they can walk away from the deal. That’s hard to replace, that type of experience, that type of performance and that type of flexibility.”
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 10, 2015 22:00:38 GMT -5
Now you know why you trade Buchholz when you have the chance. Too late.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 11, 2015 7:38:03 GMT -5
If it's TJ like we fear would we pick up his option and see how he recovers? I'm sure it's insured.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 11, 2015 7:44:52 GMT -5
If it's TJ like we fear would we pick up his option and see how he recovers? I'm sure it's insured. No, you cut your losses and move on.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 11, 2015 8:10:55 GMT -5
Kind of what I was thinking. Given the time of year it happened assuming he needs TJ next year is gone.
|
|
|