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.
Roster construction for 2016
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 5, 2015 16:28:52 GMT -5
Based on what he said to begin the season, and the success he had with that approach, I don't know that it's realistic right now to expect Betts to build on his OBP just yet. So I'm understanding where Eric is coming from.
Bradley does have to show consistency also. His "breakout" was one giant hot streak and then a tapering off to a more reasonable level, with that absurd BABIP floating down from the stratosphere. Short of waiting for another explosion like that one, letting him work his way up the lineup is a good way to go, I think. He knows how to take a walk, but he has to be able to get on base regularly beyond that. I don't know that he's quite there yet. I think the power is quite real. But he needs more than that threat, and the bases on balls that come with it, if he's going to bat leadoff.
I hope there's some flexibility built into whatever lineup they decide to go with.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 5, 2015 17:54:31 GMT -5
Eric, is there any reason you wouldn't hit Betts leadoff? He's practically the leadoff prototype, imo. OBP could stnad to go up but I think it will based on the skills he displayed in the minors. If I may answer for him... that slugging percentage is kind of wasted hitting leadoff. I think it's likely Betts has a higher SLG than Pedroia, and that Pedroia posts the higher OBP. The best reason for switching them to Betts 1/Pedroia 2 is if they are more comfortable in those lineup spots, since the difference over the course of the season isn't worth a whole heck of a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 6, 2015 7:54:24 GMT -5
I guess I'm just bullish on Betts' approach leading to an improved OBP, but bearish on the slicing staying quite that high, which would explain it. I could definitely be wrong though.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 6, 2015 7:57:08 GMT -5
I think Eric is a might too conservative with the changes that are likely to occur with the Sox, but I am just speculating. I have no idea what Dombrowski will do but I think, based on his past record, that there will be more changes in the roster than Eric proposes. Most of the changes I think will be with the pitching.
I don't think having high injury-risk Buchholz and Hill in the rotation is a good idea. I suspect there will be two additions to the top of the rotation. I think there will be a more significant shakeup to the bullpen, and there should be. That bullpen on Eric's list still is mediocre. They have to do better.
I'm not voting on the poll on whether Hanley or Pablo will be traded because I don't know how that can be done, although I certainly am in favor of trading Hanley. I still think Pablo's season was an aberration and that he will be better next year.
On that subject, I don't believe the Sox told him to lose 60-80 lbs. by ST. Someone had to have made that up. It's virtually impossible to lose that kind of weight in any healthy way in that short a period of time. Relative to our heights - I'm several inches shorter than he is - at the beginning of this year I probably was as overweight as he is. I've lost more than 40 lbs and much of the fat is gone but it has taken nine months to do it. I prepare almost all my own food, much of it from scratch. I haven't eaten in restaurants this year and generally I don't eat prepared foods. I control the ingredients in my food to keep the carbs and calories down but the nutrition high. I also exercise. Even with all that a pound a week is about as much as I can lose and keep it off. If I had a regular job or traveled a lot, this diet would be nearly impossible to follow. I know I couldn't stick to it in the past when I did have a job and traveled a great deal.
Pablo might be able to lose 20 lbs. and he should, but that is about as much as anyone can reasonably expect.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 10:30:06 GMT -5
I think Eric is a might too conservative with the changes that are likely to occur with the Sox, but I am just speculating. I have no idea what Dombrowski will do but I think, based on his past record, that there will be more changes in the roster than Eric proposes. Most of the changes I think will be with the pitching. I don't think having high injury-risk Buchholz and Hill in the rotation is a good idea. I suspect there will be two additions to the top of the rotation. I think there will be a more significant shakeup to the bullpen, and there should be. That bullpen on Eric's list still is mediocre. They have to do better. I'm not voting on the poll on whether Hanley or Pablo will be traded because I don't know how that can be done, although I certainly am in favor of trading Hanley. I still think Pablo's season was an aberration and that he will be better next year. On that subject, I don't believe the Sox told him to lose 60-80 lbs. by ST. Someone had to have made that up. It's virtually impossible to lose that kind of weight in any healthy way in that short a period of time. Relative to our heights - I'm several inches shorter than he is - at the beginning of this year I probably was as overweight as he is. I've lost more than 40 lbs and much of the fat is gone but it has taken nine months to do it. I prepare almost all my own food, much of it from scratch. I haven't eaten in restaurants this year and generally I don't eat prepared foods. I control the ingredients in my food to keep the carbs and calories down but the nutrition high. I also exercise. Even with all that a pound a week is about as much as I can lose and keep it off. If I had a regular job or traveled a lot, this diet would be nearly impossible to follow. I know I couldn't stick to it in the past when I did have a job and traveled a great deal. Pablo might be able to lose 20 lbs. and he should, but that is about as much as anyone can reasonably expect. Yes, I made that up as a joke.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 6, 2015 13:37:02 GMT -5
why on earth do people not want Wade Miley in this rotation at his cost? He's the perfect # 4, 5 starter.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 6, 2015 14:05:20 GMT -5
why on earth do people not want Wade Miley in this rotation at his cost? He's the perfect # 4, 5 starter. The short answer? Because he has a low upside and is thus unsexy, while you can dream on the alternatives (Henry Owens, Steven Wright, Rich Hill, [insert acquisition]). It's not a surprise that folks on a prospect forum can talk themselves into a guy's upside while ignoring his downside. Same reason everyone at SOSH loved the Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena trade.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Oct 6, 2015 15:04:00 GMT -5
why on earth do people not want Wade Miley in this rotation at his cost? He's the perfect # 4, 5 starter. Its not that people don't want Miley in the rotation, its that some of us would rather have what he could potentially bring back to this team in a trade. If you have to evaluate areas on this team where there is redundancy/depth from which to trade for help in areas of need, you would probably look to the backend of our rotation. Of those guys (Miley, Kelly, Owens, Wright, Johnson), we think Miley is the most likely to bring back something that would help address those needs. Of course this is all hypothetical, and if Miley can't bring back worthy value, then I think we'd all be fine or even happy to have him in the rotation. The point is thats its worth evaluating his trade value between now and April and has nothing to do with posters not wanting him in the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 6, 2015 15:15:36 GMT -5
I think I'd be more likely to try to improve Buchholz' spot in the rotation than Miley's. I'd go for certainty this offseason, more than hopes and prayers.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Oct 6, 2015 15:52:27 GMT -5
I think Eric is a might too conservative with the changes that are likely to occur with the Sox, but I am just speculating. I have no idea what Dombrowski will do but I think, based on his past record, that there will be more changes in the roster than Eric proposes. Most of the changes I think will be with the pitching. I don't think having high injury-risk Buchholz and Hill in the rotation is a good idea. I suspect there will be two additions to the top of the rotation. I think there will be a more significant shakeup to the bullpen, and there should be. That bullpen on Eric's list still is mediocre. They have to do better. I'm not voting on the poll on whether Hanley or Pablo will be traded because I don't know how that can be done, although I certainly am in favor of trading Hanley. I still think Pablo's season was an aberration and that he will be better next year. On that subject, I don't believe the Sox told him to lose 60-80 lbs. by ST. Someone had to have made that up. It's virtually impossible to lose that kind of weight in any healthy way in that short a period of time. Relative to our heights - I'm several inches shorter than he is - at the beginning of this year I probably was as overweight as he is. I've lost more than 40 lbs and much of the fat is gone but it has taken nine months to do it. I prepare almost all my own food, much of it from scratch. I haven't eaten in restaurants this year and generally I don't eat prepared foods. I control the ingredients in my food to keep the carbs and calories down but the nutrition high. I also exercise. Even with all that a pound a week is about as much as I can lose and keep it off. If I had a regular job or traveled a lot, this diet would be nearly impossible to follow. I know I couldn't stick to it in the past when I did have a job and traveled a great deal. Pablo might be able to lose 20 lbs. and he should, but that is about as much as anyone can reasonably expect. Well I don't know how much weight is realistic or not for Sandoval to lose between now and ST but.... And this is not an attack, but thinking you are quite a bit older than he is? Age is not a friend in regard to weight loss. I have to work out harder than I ever had before just to maintain my weight. In order to lose I have to exercise AND eat almost nothing that tastes good for weeks/months. When I was younger the weight used to come off just with the exercise. Also, if Sandoval wanted to eat in the manner you are, he could, even on the road. With no problem. He has far more resources available to him, monetary and other, than the average travelling business person. I guess I just don't think comparing yourself to him is a good way to predict what he can or cannot do.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 7, 2015 12:42:09 GMT -5
I used myself as an example. And I didn't mean that what I am doing either would work or not work for others. It will work for some and not for others. Human body chemistry and metabolism are very individualistic. I happen to be super-sensitive to carbs. Not everyone is.
I am much older than Sandoval - than of most folks BTW - and weight does not come off easily. However, I made it my top priority and it didn't have a lot of competition. I can tell you it gets tougher and tougher and if the diet isn't tolerable, it will become impossible to stay on it. You hit spots where the body resists. I've had periods of two to three weeks when not an ounce came off - and then I would drop a few. But if the drop was more than three or four lbs. one or two would come right back. Regardless of the diet, gradual weight loss is what most doctors and nutritionists say is the best way to lose and to keep off weight. They all oppose binge dieting.
Diets always seem to be faddish. A few years ago there was the cabbage soup diet. For a week all a person would consume was cabbage soup at every meal and nothing else. And it was a vegetarian low fat cabbage soup. Weight losses of more than 10 lbs often resulted. However, within a short period of time the weight came back - and in many cases more weight came back than was lost. Health problems also were reported.
You may recall a few years ago when people - and the team - got on Ortiz for his weight. He lost a lot of weight in one off season and then was a wreck in ST. He was weak and it took him a while to recover.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Oct 7, 2015 14:53:12 GMT -5
Yeah, whatever diet works I guess? Not really the point of my post. Just saying I don't see how you can say what is the right amount for him to lose in the next 100+ days based on you and your experiences. He is crazy overweight. Probably 100 lbs or so? Whatever the case it should be easier for him to lose weight faster than someone who is only 20 lbs overweight. It will certainly be easier for him to lose weight faster than you based on age alone.
How much loss does that add up to? No clue, but would guess that if it is only 20 lbs the Sox brass will be pretty upset.
|
|
|
Post by Alonzo on Oct 7, 2015 15:42:22 GMT -5
why on earth do people not want Wade Miley in this rotation at his cost? He's the perfect # 4, 5 starter. The short answer? Because he has a low upside and is thus unsexy, while you can dream on the alternatives (Henry Owens, Steven Wright, Rich Hill, [insert acquisition]). It's not a surprise that folks on a prospect forum can talk themselves into a guy's upside while ignoring his downside. Same reason everyone at SOSH loved the Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena trade. You may be on to something, every fanbase is "upside-prone", but in our special case, it might actually not fit. We have so much SP-depth that it wouldn't be the end of the world if 1 or maybe even 2 guys flop. Like this: Ace Buchholz Porcello (usually dependable) Rodriguez (tough to predict him regressing by looking at his advanced stats) Kelly/Owens/Johnson/Hill/Wright The #5 spot is tricky in terms of upside/risk/injury, but there are basically endless options. I wouldn't have headaches with Wright in this spot, he can be trusted as a back end starter.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Oct 7, 2015 15:44:41 GMT -5
why on earth do people not want Wade Miley in this rotation at his cost? He's the perfect # 4, 5 starter. The short answer? Because he has a low upside and is thus unsexy, while you can dream on the alternatives (Henry Owens, Steven Wright, Rich Hill, [insert acquisition]). It's not a surprise that folks on a prospect forum can talk themselves into a guy's upside while ignoring his downside. Same reason everyone at SOSH loved the Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena trade. If we add a couple of starting pitchers we are going to have to create some room. If we add only one starter maybe not. Of the current roster lets assume Porcello, miley, Buch, Rodriguez are all starters and have to be in a rotation. Lets also assume that Kelly, Wright, Owens could be in the rotation. Lets also assume that after that there is not a lot of depth, the only exception being Johnson. Lets say we add 1 pitcher and we call him ACE. We could go into the season ACE Buch Rodriguez Porcello Miley Kelly in the pen, and the rest in AAA. That seems like a very likely out come But if we add 2 starters we need room. Rodriguez is not going anywhere. Buch has the most upside and is on a good one year at a time contract. Porcello is pricey to trade. That leaves Miley as, potentially, the odd man out. Furthermore he would be easy to trade and should/could actually fetch a worthy return. Also, if this team in unable to trade pablo or Hanley and /or spends any money in FA on hitting, there is going to have to be some sallary shed somewhere. Miley is a good cheap cost controlled number4 starter, but that is also what makes him valuable to other teams. How many less wins would we be with Kelly or Owens in his spot? I'm all for keeping Miley but I'm also all for getting at least one top of the rotation starter. We have options in the 4 slot. Miley is just one of them.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 7, 2015 15:49:22 GMT -5
Yeah, whatever diet works I guess? Not really the point of my post. Just saying I don't see how you can say what is the right amount for him to lose in the next 100+ days based on you and your experiences. He is crazy overweight. Probably 100 lbs or so? Whatever the case it should be easier for him to lose weight faster than someone who is only 20 lbs overweight. It will certainly be easier for him to lose weight faster than you based on age alone. How much loss does that add up to? No clue, but would guess that if it is only 20 lbs the Sox brass will be pretty upset. I think you are seriously overestimating the value that rapid weight loss would have for Pablo. He's spent his career honing skills to play with the body he has. Can he lose 20 lbs in 6 months? Yeah. He'll probably be losing a lot more than just that. Coordination, motor skills. Average Joe who is significantly overweight can lose 20 lbs because they can do it without regard for maintaining peak athletic performance. You can't do this in an offseason. Like someone else observed, Ortiz has been improving his conditioning gradually over the past five years. He has attributed that to diet in interviews. Its about slow and steady. Like it or not, Fat Panda is Fat Panda at this stage. I don't like it, because Panda falls into the two scariest demographics of player aging-wise (heavy, reliant on O-contact). But saying he can turn it around so easily is unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Oct 7, 2015 15:52:08 GMT -5
Anybody else think that it amy make sense to sign J Upton to play LF and try and move Castillo or maybe JBJ can be a centrepiece for Harvey or Sale? ?? Upton will probably cost less than Cespedes and much less than Heyward. He may also be the power bat this team needs.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 7, 2015 16:04:56 GMT -5
Anybody else think that it amy make sense to sign J Upton to play LF and try and move Castillo or maybe JBJ can be a centrepiece for Harvey or Sale? ?? Upton will probably cost less than Cespedes and much less than Heyward. He may also be the power bat this team needs. The short answer: No. The long answer: I don't think Cespedes having a career contract year is going to make teams ignore the fact that Upton is younger and has been more consistently productive. I'm sure he'll have plenty of suitors. I think the premise that Castillo or JBJ could be the centerpiece for Harvey or Sale is also off. After all, if JBJ were good enough to be the centerpiece for such a trade we wouldn't be sniffing around Upton, Cespedes, Heyward in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2015 16:12:37 GMT -5
But if we add 2 starters we need room. Rodriguez is not going anywhere. Buch has the most upside and is on a good one year at a time contract. Porcello is pricey to trade. That leaves Miley as, potentially, the odd man out. Furthermore he would be easy to trade and should/could actually fetch a worthy return. Also, if this team in unable to trade pablo or Hanley and /or spends any money in FA on hitting, there is going to have to be some sallary shed somewhere. Miley is a good cheap cost controlled number4 starter, but that is also what makes him valuable to other teams. How many less wins would we be with Kelly or Owens in his spot? I'm all for keeping Miley but I'm also all for getting at least one top of the rotation starter. We have options in the 4 slot. Miley is just one of them. Yeah, I think trading Miley is definitely an option. But it's not necessarily the only option, and it could well make sense to keep him (if that second starter is not enough of an upgrade or is too expensive, if you end up moving Owens as part of the deal for the first starter, if you get a big offer for Buchholz, etc). In other words, you shouldn't decide that Miley is the odd man out and then take the best offer you can get for him. You should weigh the benefits and costs of trading Miley and compare it to your other alternatives, some of which I've mentioned above.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 7, 2015 17:21:53 GMT -5
Anybody else think that it amy make sense to sign J Upton to play LF and try and move Castillo or maybe JBJ can be a centrepiece for Harvey or Sale? ?? Upton will probably cost less than Cespedes and much less than Heyward. He may also be the power bat this team needs. The short answer: No. The long answer: I don't think Cespedes having a career contract year is going to make teams ignore the fact that Upton is younger and has been more consistently productive. I'm sure he'll have plenty of suitors. I think the premise that Castillo or JBJ could be the centerpiece for Harvey or Sale is also off. After all, if JBJ were good enough to be the centerpiece for such a trade we wouldn't be sniffing around Upton, Cespedes, Heyward in the first place. There's no doubt that some folks are "sniffing around" as you put it. I'm not sure that means the FO is. One indicator is Dombrowski's attempt to trade for Bradley, and that was before his breakout. In the 60 games after his call-up, JBJ's line was .267/.352/.539, and just about all the 2.2 bWAR he accumulated was over that stretch. Cespedes, who had people dancing in the streets in NY, was worth 2.3 during his 57 games for the Mets. Not much difference. Justin Upton was worth 4.4, but in 150 games, more than twice as many. Can the Sox count on that sort of output going forward? I doubt the slugging remains at that level, but between the defense and offense, he may be worth 3.5 to 4.5, and he's much less expensive. There are issues to address, primarily pitching, though an additional power bat would be nice, and Upton might do very well in Fenway. But getting rid of a gold glove outfielder for that bat, one that may only represent a marginal improvement at a very high price, may not be the best way to approach it. Speier's newsletter goes into depth about Ellsbury's significant decline in the second half of the season. Not only did Betts provide triple the value, but Bradley in those 60 games was also worth more. There were a few people on this board who hated the idea of watching Ellsbury walk away. But if this is his decline phase, that was absolutely the right thing to do. That's the context for spending huge amounts of money on players who may be questionable in a few years. What can you get from them that you can't from what you're holding, and how long can you get it?
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Oct 7, 2015 17:25:36 GMT -5
Yeah, whatever diet works I guess? Not really the point of my post. Just saying I don't see how you can say what is the right amount for him to lose in the next 100+ days based on you and your experiences. He is crazy overweight. Probably 100 lbs or so? Whatever the case it should be easier for him to lose weight faster than someone who is only 20 lbs overweight. It will certainly be easier for him to lose weight faster than you based on age alone. How much loss does that add up to? No clue, but would guess that if it is only 20 lbs the Sox brass will be pretty upset. I think you are seriously overestimating the value that rapid weight loss would have for Pablo. He's spent his career honing skills to play with the body he has. Can he lose 20 lbs in 6 months? Yeah. He'll probably be losing a lot more than just that. Coordination, motor skills. Average Joe who is significantly overweight can lose 20 lbs because they can do it without regard for maintaining peak athletic performance. You can't do this in an offseason. Like someone else observed, Ortiz has been improving his conditioning gradually over the past five years. He has attributed that to diet in interviews. Its about slow and steady. Like it or not, Fat Panda is Fat Panda at this stage. I don't like it, because Panda falls into the two scariest demographics of player aging-wise (heavy, reliant on O-contact). But saying he can turn it around so easily is unreasonable. Yeah if only there were examples of athletes who lost weight and performed better. Hum, maybe there is at least one. Pablo Sandoval. Twice. 2010 he was benched during playoffs. Had an ops of .732. Weighed a reprted 278. 2011 reprted to have lost 38 lbs coming to ST weighing 240. Had an OPS of .909 hit 23 HR in 117 games, 10 more than he hit in 152 the year before. Got hit by pitch and suffered broken hammate bone that year too. Reason for only 117 games played. Then he went through same fire drill between 2013 and 2014. Numbers were not greatly improved but on par. He certainly didnt collapse or fail misserably by comparison. Runs, BA, HR, RBI all better actually. His OPS was slightly worse. .758 to .739. It allowed him to play more games. And I am showing just the offensive numbers here, defensively he used to be pretty good. Again i am not saying i know the number he has been told to lose but i would be shocked if anyone in FO was happy with only 20. He has done this before.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 8, 2015 7:10:26 GMT -5
I think you are seriously overestimating the value that rapid weight loss would have for Pablo. He's spent his career honing skills to play with the body he has. Can he lose 20 lbs in 6 months? Yeah. He'll probably be losing a lot more than just that. Coordination, motor skills. Average Joe who is significantly overweight can lose 20 lbs because they can do it without regard for maintaining peak athletic performance. You can't do this in an offseason. Like someone else observed, Ortiz has been improving his conditioning gradually over the past five years. He has attributed that to diet in interviews. Its about slow and steady. Like it or not, Fat Panda is Fat Panda at this stage. I don't like it, because Panda falls into the two scariest demographics of player aging-wise (heavy, reliant on O-contact). But saying he can turn it around so easily is unreasonable. Yeah if only there were examples of athletes who lost weight and performed better. Hum, maybe there is at least one. Pablo Sandoval. Twice. 2010 he was benched during playoffs. Had an ops of .732. Weighed a reprted 278. 2011 reprted to have lost 38 lbs coming to ST weighing 240. Had an OPS of .909 hit 23 HR in 117 games, 10 more than he hit in 152 the year before. Got hit by pitch and suffered broken hammate bone that year too. Reason for only 117 games played. Then he went through same fire drill between 2013 and 2014. Numbers were not greatly improved but on par. He certainly didnt collapse or fail misserably by comparison. Runs, BA, HR, RBI all better actually. His OPS was slightly worse. .758 to .739. It allowed him to play more games. And I am showing just the offensive numbers here, defensively he used to be pretty good. Again i am not saying i know the number he has been told to lose but i would be shocked if anyone in FO was happy with only 20. He has done this before. It's probably going to be an issue if he actually has pneu monia. It takes quite awhile to get over that and it will be hard to work out and lose weight.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 8, 2015 10:15:56 GMT -5
why on earth do people not want Wade Miley in this rotation at his cost? He's the perfect # 4, 5 starter. The short answer? Because he has a low upside and is thus unsexy, while you can dream on the alternatives (Henry Owens, Steven Wright, Rich Hill, [insert acquisition]). It's not a surprise that folks on a prospect forum can talk themselves into a guy's upside while ignoring his downside. Same reason everyone at SOSH loved the Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena trade. It's true for virtually any prospect. MiLB stats are nice, but we all dream on the future and project - well or not - what these guys can be. Can bes are almost always much shinier than what most MLB players are.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 8, 2015 10:52:08 GMT -5
I don't understand why anyone would want Buchholz on this team next season. His trends are tiresome and it's been long enough. He offers terrible stretches and amazing stretches and always misses a lot of time. He's the definition of unreliable and there is no reason to think that going to change. Even if he does, the odds are so low at this point that it's not worth the risk. If he were the 4th or 5th option on a team, I'd say take the risk, but when you're relying on him to be your 2nd or 3rd best starter he should just be shown the door.
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Oct 8, 2015 11:06:59 GMT -5
I don't understand why anyone would want Buchholz on this team next season. His trends are tiresome and it's been long enough. He offers terrible stretches and amazing stretches and always misses a lot of time. He's the definition of unreliable and there is no reason to think that going to change. Even if he does, the odds are so low at this point that it's not worth the risk. If he were the 4th or 5th option on a team, I'd say take the risk, but when you're relying on him to be your 2nd or 3rd best starter he should just be shown the door. I can't say I disagree. While he is certainly worth the gamble in terms of his salary/contract, I would much rather trade him for a useful spare part and use the money saved for David Price. I'm thinking a team like the Pirates, Royals, or Athletics who can't afford a #1 in free agency have a lot more to gain taking a gamble on Buchholz than the Red Sox.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Oct 8, 2015 13:16:26 GMT -5
I don't understand why anyone would want Buchholz on this team next season. His trends are tiresome and it's been long enough. He offers terrible stretches and amazing stretches and always misses a lot of time. He's the definition of unreliable and there is no reason to think that going to change. Even if he does, the odds are so low at this point that it's not worth the risk. If he were the 4th or 5th option on a team, I'd say take the risk, but when you're relying on him to be your 2nd or 3rd best starter he should just be shown the door. Buchholz has actually been a true #1 for the Sox for several runs of 100+IP. His 11.7M AAV is half of Porcello's and a third of a Price contract. If he piched closer to 200 innings he would be worth a Price contract. Not alot of 200IP guys out there anyways. The only gamble on his option comes from the number of IP over 100. Even if Dave wants to replace him, he has to sign him first and demonstrate his health in ST ... At which point Dave may see him as a healthy TOR dominant starter and decide to keep him. IMO, get a good pitcher, keep Buch, and keep depth in AAA to cover 80 -100IP if necessary.
|
|
|