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.
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Aug 26, 2015 9:49:10 GMT -5
It is noticeable that a number of the good prospects have trended down some in the past few weeks. I suspect that fatigue is part of it. That's my take also danr. I hate that guys like Devers and Margot are finishing poorly, but it is a VERY long season and some of these guys are just finding this out. Xander last year found this out even more so and adjusted his workout routine.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 28, 2015 6:39:53 GMT -5
6-3-2015 " Traded Joe Gunkel to Baltimore for Alejandro De Aza and cash considerations. " This article claims that the Sox are only paying $1M of De Aza's $5M contract. Which would leave $250k owed by an acquiring team for September. "He is only costing the Red Sox $1 million, so he appears to be an affordable rental if the Giants jump back into the trade market." www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/8/24/9198255/giants-trade-rumors-alejandro-de-azaWe must assume DeAza cleared waivers ... That's the accountant's point of view, not the lawyer's. As far as I understand it, any team claiming De Aza would be on the hook for the full contract, as the Red Sox would only put De Aza on the waiver wire, and not the cash considerations.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 29, 2015 3:56:38 GMT -5
6-3-2015 " Traded Joe Gunkel to Baltimore for Alejandro De Aza and cash considerations. " This article claims that the Sox are only paying $1M of De Aza's $5M contract. Which would leave $250k owed by an acquiring team for September. "He is only costing the Red Sox $1 million, so he appears to be an affordable rental if the Giants jump back into the trade market." www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/8/24/9198255/giants-trade-rumors-alejandro-de-azaWe must assume DeAza cleared waivers ... That's the accountant's point of view, not the lawyer's. As far as I understand it, any team claiming De Aza would be on the hook for the full contract, as the Red Sox would only put De Aza on the waiver wire, and not the cash considerations. I think this is right, and explains why he cleared waivers.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 29, 2015 8:49:31 GMT -5
I think the better questions should be who would you least like to part with?
Xander, Betts, Vasquez, E-Rod & JBJ and prospects Devers, Moncada, Benintendi and Espinoza. This list is positionally heavy and Espinoza is only 17, therefore using assets to acquire pitching becomes both good here and now and for down the road.
Or who is most likely to be traded? (not who you would like to be traded that is a different question as contract length and overall value hamper some trades from happening. Margot, 1 between Johnson and Owens, 1 between Kelly & Miley, J. Guerra, Swihart, and 1 veteran between Hanley, Pedrioa and Sandoval.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Aug 29, 2015 10:18:24 GMT -5
I think the better questions should be who would you least like to part with? Xander, Betts, Vasquez, E-Rod & JBJ and prospects Devers, Moncada, Benintendi and Espinoza. This list is positionally heavy and Espinoza is only 17, therefore using assets to acquire pitching becomes both good here and now and for down the road. Or who is most likely to be traded? (not who you would like to be traded that is a different question as contract length and overall value hamper some trades from happening. Margot, 1 between Johnson and Owens, 1 between Kelly & Miley, J. Guerra, Swihart, and 1 veteran between Hanley, Pedrioa and Sandoval. Not on board, at all, with moving Swihart unless we can pick up someone like Sonny Gray. Also feel the same way about Bradley JR (acknowledge he is not on your list). And finally, in the right deal, we can part with Devers. The other 3 prospects are the ONLY ones, for me, that are untouchable. Beni and Moncada will coming real fast next season and could potentially be ready for Boston in 2017, and Espinoza.....no way would I ever consider trading him. No way! Vasquez could be added in the right deal, but we would probably (because of the TJ) be selling low. I'm sure Dombrowski's list is as short, if not shorter who he would not consider.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Aug 29, 2015 10:34:26 GMT -5
I don't think DD will trade young core guys such as Betts, JBJ, Castillo, Bogaerts, Swihart, and E rod. Very unlikely that Beni, Moncada and Espinoza will be moved. Likely that Margot and Guerra will be. (Both are blocked)
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Aug 29, 2015 10:42:56 GMT -5
Guys you keep: Bogaerts Betts JBJ (yes, I'm serious) Swihart E-Rod Moncada Devers Espinosa Benintendi
Guys available for trade: Guerra Margot Barnes Marrero Chavis
Guys you listen on: Owens/Johnson Michael Kopech C-Vazquez
So basically, you can either package Margot, Johnson/Owens, Guerra and filler in a blockbuster or make multiple deals.
With SD reportedly wanting a SS prospect, I'd sell high on Guerra and package him with Barnes for Kimbrel. Steep price for a reliever but he's arguably the best and we need a power arm out of the pen.
I would package Johnson/Owens, Margot, Kopech and Chavis for Chris Sale. Might need to add more, but you get where I'm going with this. If I'm going to buy, I'm buying a proven ace with years of control left. Sale's contract is also a thing of beauty.
Rotation Chris Sale Clay Buchholz Eduardo Rodriguez Rick Porcello Wade Miley Depth: Johnson/Owens, Kelly, Wright
Bullpen Kimbrel Koji Tazawa
There's a foundation there and you could still tweek it a bit. The rotation finally has an ace, and everybody else (assuming a healthy and productive year or half-year of Clay) slots right in where you'd expect them to. Sale is a #1, Clay when on is a #1-2, E-Rod depending on growth and upside could slot in anywhere between #1-3 and Porcello and Miley are solid 4-5 starters who eat innings.
These are the types of moves I'd like us to explore. You keep the farm intact and keep the studs, but use the depth to your advantage.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 29, 2015 10:44:40 GMT -5
Guys you keep: Bogaerts Betts JBJ (yes, I'm serious) Swihart E-Rod Moncada Devers Espinosa Benintendi Guys available for trade: Guerra Margot Barnes Marrero Chavis Guys you listen on: Owens/Johnson Michael Kopech C-Vazquez So basically, you can either package Margot, Johnson/Owens, Guerra and filler in a blockbuster or make multiple deals. With SD reportedly wanting a SS prospect, I'd sell high on Guerra and package him with Barnes for Kimbrel. Steep price for a reliever but he's arguably the best and we need a power arm out of the pen. I would package Johnson/Owens, Margot, Kopech and Chavis for Chris Sale. Might need to add more, but you get where I'm going with this. If I'm going to buy, I'm buying a proven ace with years of control left. Sale's contract is also a thing of beauty. Rotation Chris Sale Clay Buchholz Eduardo Rodriguez Rick Porcello Wade Miley Depth: Johnson/Owens, Kelly, Wright Bullpen Kimbrel Koji Tazawa There's a foundation there and you could still tweek it a bit. The rotation finally has an ace, and everybody else (assuming a healthy and productive year or half-year of Clay) slots right in where you'd expect them to. Sale is a #1, Clay when on is a #1-2, E-Rod depending on growth and upside could slot in anywhere between #1-3 and Porcello and Miley are solid 4-5 starters who eat innings. These are the types of moves I'd like us to explore. You keep the farm intact and keep the studs, but use the depth to your advantage. That's an absolute joke of an offer for Chris Sale. If you want Chris Sale, take that guys to keep list and offer 4-5 of them and that still might not be enough
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,810
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Aug 29, 2015 11:19:50 GMT -5
Guys you keep: Bogaerts Betts JBJ (yes, I'm serious) Swihart E-Rod Moncada Devers Espinosa Benintendi Guys available for trade: Guerra Margot Barnes Marrero Chavis Guys you listen on: Owens/Johnson Michael Kopech C-Vazquez So basically, you can either package Margot, Johnson/Owens, Guerra and filler in a blockbuster or make multiple deals. With SD reportedly wanting a SS prospect, I'd sell high on Guerra and package him with Barnes for Kimbrel. Steep price for a reliever but he's arguably the best and we need a power arm out of the pen. I would package Johnson/Owens, Margot, Kopech and Chavis for Chris Sale. Might need to add more, but you get where I'm going with this. If I'm going to buy, I'm buying a proven ace with years of control left. Sale's contract is also a thing of beauty. Rotation Chris Sale Clay Buchholz Eduardo Rodriguez Rick Porcello Wade Miley Depth: Johnson/Owens, Kelly, Wright Bullpen Kimbrel Koji Tazawa There's a foundation there and you could still tweek it a bit. The rotation finally has an ace, and everybody else (assuming a healthy and productive year or half-year of Clay) slots right in where you'd expect them to. Sale is a #1, Clay when on is a #1-2, E-Rod depending on growth and upside could slot in anywhere between #1-3 and Porcello and Miley are solid 4-5 starters who eat innings. These are the types of moves I'd like us to explore. You keep the farm intact and keep the studs, but use the depth to your advantage. I agree with most of your keep/trade selections but I can't imagine that the package you propose for Sale gets you anywhere near him. I'd move Swihart from "keep" to "trade." I think it's going to be necessary to include him in a trade to get a young stud cost-controlled starter and we have redundancy at C. My biggest fear is that DD will move Mookie or JBJ. Mookie is already basically a 6 WAR stud (that's his career figure through 164 games) and JBJ could get there. Lagares was 3.5 and 3.4 bRef dWAR the last two seasons and JBJ is at least comparable to, and probably better, than him. If JBJ gets to those Lagares dWAR numbers over a full season, he'll be a 6 WAR guy.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 29, 2015 11:26:43 GMT -5
There's a decent chance David Price is as good for 4-5 years as Sale. Given their body types. Do you overpay for the last 2-3 years of Price's contract to get those 4-5 good years? Only costs money. You may only get 4-5 years out of Sale and have given up elite prospects too.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Aug 29, 2015 11:40:25 GMT -5
There's a decent chance David Price is as good for 4-5 years as Sale. Given their body types. Do you overpay for the last 2-3 years of Price's contract to get those 4-5 good years? Only costs money. You may only get 4-5 years out of Sale and have given up elite prospects too. But then you also have to give up more than 210 million (what Scherzer got) for Price. I don't think Sale is available for any price really, so I don't think we can get him, but I'd rather have 210 million+ to spend than some prospects. Of the recent best farm systems in baseball that it's not too early to judge, only the Rays with Longoria and Price would be worth more than 210 mm. The Rangers top 3 in 2009 (Andrus, Smoak and Feliz) would not be worth that much and neither would the Royals top 3 in 2011 (Hosmer, Moose, Myers) and that one was widely hailed as one of the best farm systems ever. It's a gamble either way.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 29, 2015 12:05:09 GMT -5
A big market team such as; Boston, NY, LA or Chicago. Should have 25m per year slotted for their ace. If they've got one cheaper fine. But, it costs to have a good pitcher. We'd have one for less than that had we extended Lester. We have to pay for that mistake if you want to win in 2016. And, increase NESN ratings. Just don't pick up Buchholz option.
I would also add that I don't think our window to win is 2-3 years. I wouldn't have a problem riding out what we have in 2016. If we're playing well and need an ace. Trade for Strasburg next season if Washington is out of it. I want to keep; Mookie, Xander, JBJ and Vazquez/Swihart. E-Rod too of course. Also, keeping Moncada, Benintendi, Espinosa. Not sure we can get Sale or Gray without giving up anyone from that group.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Aug 29, 2015 12:14:10 GMT -5
Not to get too sidetracked, but the Sale question makes me actually think of two damn good young pitchers who could be available for the right package. Both guys will be entering their first arb eligible season in 2016 and both are represented by Scott Boras.
Jose Fernandez & Matt Harvey.
I don't think Margot, Owens and Guerra quite gets either one, but I do believe that with each players contract status and team situations: Mets want to compete and have an amazing rotation but no offense. Loria's disdain for spending money. Both may be attainable and that those three could be used. I just don't have a sense as to what else would need to be offered. Rusney? Devers?
Please feel free to move elsewhere if this is too off the scope of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Aug 29, 2015 12:19:31 GMT -5
I'd rather place the focus on guys who cannot (or should not) be traded. The list is short and subjective. Betts Swihart Pedroia Owens Boegarts
One caveat that is totally unknowable at this point. IF Buccholz comes back healthy (i.e. 28 starts 180IP). Then the list would expand slightly. A quality starter, similar to an optimistic projection for Buccholz would be needed to compete in the post season next year. In any event, the end to a dismal 2015 season shows great promise from within. If one of Barnes, Johnson or Wright really turns the corner, I'd be tempted to favor a stand pat winter.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 29, 2015 12:25:00 GMT -5
I don't think anyone's trading a top tier ace. I don't think the Mets are touching their top guys, Oakland is probably a year or two away on Gray, Sale and his contract is the type of guy you build around if your Chicago and the Indians didn't budge on Carasco with rumors of a very good offer from the Jays. It's either catch lighting in a bottle or go get one on the FA market.
I'd make a run at Price first then Cueto. I wouldn't worry about going over the luxury tax bc we have guys coming off the books soon. I'm hoping Sandaval has a good offseason and rebounds next year and someone bites on a 3 year deal when Moncado should be ready. Maybe Benintendi takes the Conforto path and his league minimum salary replaces Castillios $10+ million in 2017. Dom hasn't been afraid to trade MLB pieces in the past for help elsewhere.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 29, 2015 12:26:48 GMT -5
A big market team such as; Boston, NY, LA or Chicago. Should have 25m per year slotted for their ace. If they've got one cheaper fine. But, it costs to have a good pitcher. We'd have one for less than that had we extended Lester. We have to pay for that mistake if you want to win in 2016. And, increase NESN ratings. Just don't pick up Buchholz option.
I would also add that I don't think our window to win is 2-3 years. I wouldn't have a problem riding out what we have in 2016. If we're playing well and need an ace. Trade for Strasburg next season if Washington is out of it. I want to keep; Mookie, Xander, JBJ and Vazquez/Swihart. E-Rod too of course. Also, keeping Moncada, Benintendi, Espinosa. Not sure we can get Sale or Gray without giving up anyone from that group. Lester has 2.0 bWAR in his 25 starts so far. Buchholz had 2.6 in his 18. At the rate he's going, Lester is just going to catch Buchholz, even though Clay missed 45% of the season. Of the 154 SP pitchers with 70 IP or more, Lester ranks 15th in xFIP-, 20th in SIERA, 24th in FIP-, and 27th in WPA. He's 47th in ERA- and 51st in bWAR. In terms of fundamentals he has been what he's always been, a very good #2 starter. He's had terrible sequencing luck or karma, which has driven up his ERA and hence lowered his bWAR, but that has been partially offset by giving up lots of runs when the game was already lost and they counted less. His actual value, all luck included (WPA), puts him as a middle of the pack #2 starter. Clay Buchholz has 0.29 more WPA in 7 fewer starts.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,947
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 29, 2015 12:27:06 GMT -5
My list of guys who can't be traded is short, just guys who couldn't be replaced: Bogaerts.
Everyone else can go, for the right return.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Aug 29, 2015 12:57:46 GMT -5
The Sox have to pursue Price at all costs (not a fan of signing Cueto or Zimmermann at all), and piece together a package of Guerra/Margot/Johnson/Kopech, or something similar, for a cost-controlled guy like Carrasco. I don't want to give up anything that'd come back to bite us, like including Swihart for Gray. Swihart's been tearing the cover off the ball and his defense has been consistently better than advertised. Especially with Vaz returning from TJ, I love Hanigan, and I'd like to see Swihart starting and Hanigan as the backup next season, with Vaz taking as much time as he needs recovering fully in Pawtucket. Redundancy at C means he doesn't have to be rushed back, and redundancy at other positions, like SS (Xander/Guerra), and OF (Margot, Benintendi, on top of current OF) will let us at least enter some discussions in trading for a top starter. That's what the farm's for, right? Build as much as you can and trade excess for what you need, and the Sox have done an amazing job at that.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 29, 2015 13:06:52 GMT -5
There's a strong consensus here that Margot and Guerra can be moved. People are widely divided as to whether Swihart should go, and some people are willing to trade either Owens or Johnson, and some aren't. And of course, people are divided as to whether we should sign a FA pitcher. In this scenario, that would be in addition to trading for a young starter. (There's another scenario where Hanley fails at 1B, and they dump him and trade kids for a 1B, and the FA starter is the only rotation addition. But that seems like a longshot. As does signing two FA pitchers; I'm skeptical that there will be one guy worth the money long-term, let alone two.)
There is a widespread consensus on who to keep, since that's kind of incredibly obvious. There's no need to trade anyone who projects to be valuable next year.
So this sets up a bunch of escalating offers from DDo. He has to decide which of these he's willing to do. All of them can be supplemented by Marrero, etc. -- anyone not in our top 8. But this would be the core of the deal. When I show Miley being included, it's not because he's worth much -- it's to note that we'd want to move him to open up a slot for someone better.
1. Margot, Guerra, [Miley] 2. Margot, Guerra, Johnson 3. Margot, Guerra, Owens 4. Swihart, Margot, Guerra, [Miley] 5. Swihart, Margot, Guerra, Johnson 6. Swihart, Margot, Guerra, Owens
In the scenarios where Johnson and Owens are kept, they compete with Wright for the 5th starter, and the other two are Buchholz insurance.
In the scenarios where Johnson or Owens are traded, you're keeping Miley, so he's the 5th starter, and Wright and whoever you kept are Buchholz insurance. (Given the present health of Wright and Johnson and the possibility they may not pitch again this year, there's probably an argument for keeping Owens as the Buchholz insurance.)
However, in those scenarios, you can sign a FA pitcher and trade Miley. I don't like the idea of signing a FA pitcher who would block all of Wright, Owens, and Johnson until Buchholz or someone else got hurt; that's a terrible use of resources, especially if the FA costs you the #11 or #12 pick. But there's some argument to signing a FA so that you can trade Owens or Johnson and get a considerably better SP in trade -- especially if you decide you have to keep Swihart for another year just because of Vazquez's elbow.
This would be a formidable rotation:
Price or whomever else you like Guy you got for Swihart, Margot, Guerra, Johnson/Owens [ and Miley] (you might get a bullpen arm or two as well) Buchholz, backed up by Wright and Owens/Johnson Porcello ERod
The weird thing is that it's very unlikely that you could get a guy to front your rotation with just Margot and Guerra. Adding Owens or Johnson gets you a significantly better guy (though still not a true ace), and it also creates an opening for a FA (does anyone foresee DDo keeping Miley and not going after a FA? Whereas passing on the FA market makes much more sense if Wright and Owens are the 5th starter options.).
So if Swihart is not tradeable, then there seems to be a forced choice between conservative and all-in. Very interesting.
I'm on record as liking option 4. But if DDo keeps Swihart another year and does 2 and gets a cost-controlled young #2 type, and signs Price or the equivalent, it would be hard to complain (edit: and it's precisely what humanbeingbean suggested as I was writing this). And signing big FAs and building a formidable rotation are two things he's certainly done in the past.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 29, 2015 13:09:42 GMT -5
A big market team such as; Boston, NY, LA or Chicago. Should have 25m per year slotted for their ace. If they've got one cheaper fine. But, it costs to have a good pitcher. We'd have one for less than that had we extended Lester. We have to pay for that mistake if you want to win in 2016. And, increase NESN ratings. Just don't pick up Buchholz option.
I would also add that I don't think our window to win is 2-3 years. I wouldn't have a problem riding out what we have in 2016. If we're playing well and need an ace. Trade for Strasburg next season if Washington is out of it. I want to keep; Mookie, Xander, JBJ and Vazquez/Swihart. E-Rod too of course. Also, keeping Moncada, Benintendi, Espinosa. Not sure we can get Sale or Gray without giving up anyone from that group. Lester has 2.0 bWAR in his 25 starts so far. Buchholz had 2.6 in his 18. At the rate he's going, Lester is just going to catch Buchholz, even though Clay missed 45% of the season. Of the 154 SP pitchers with 70 IP or more, Lester ranks 15th in xFIP-, 20th in SIERA, 24th in FIP-, and 27th in WPA. He's 47th in ERA- and 51st in bWAR. In terms of fundamentals he has been what he's always been, a very good #2 starter. He's had terrible sequencing luck or karma, which has driven up his ERA and hence lowered his bWAR, but that has been partially offset by giving up lots of runs when the game was already lost and they counted less. His actual value, all luck included (WPA), puts him as a middle of the pack #2 starter. Clay Buchholz has 0.29 more WPA in 7 fewer starts. Because Buchholz is unable to finish seasons, his value to the team isn't as great as his statistics. It forces us to throw a lesser pitcher out there and deal with the consequences. His real war is his minus his replacement's. Unless you want to deal a prospect like Iglesias for his replacement:)
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,947
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 29, 2015 13:15:53 GMT -5
Because Buchholz is unable to finish seasons, his value to the team isn't as great as his statistics. It forces us to throw a lesser pitcher out there and deal with the consequences. His real war is his minus his replacement's. ... Isn't his limited ability to finish the season already factored into his WAR? He's not half of a 2.6 WAR pitcher, he's ((roughly!)) half of a 5 WAR pitcher, no?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 29, 2015 13:19:08 GMT -5
Lester has 2.0 bWAR in his 25 starts so far. Buchholz had 2.6 in his 18. At the rate he's going, Lester is just going to catch Buchholz, even though Clay missed 45% of the season. Of the 154 SP pitchers with 70 IP or more, Lester ranks 15th in xFIP-, 20th in SIERA, 24th in FIP-, and 27th in WPA. He's 47th in ERA- and 51st in bWAR. In terms of fundamentals he has been what he's always been, a very good #2 starter. He's had terrible sequencing luck or karma, which has driven up his ERA and hence lowered his bWAR, but that has been partially offset by giving up lots of runs when the game was already lost and they counted less. His actual value, all luck included (WPA), puts him as a middle of the pack #2 starter. Clay Buchholz has 0.29 more WPA in 7 fewer starts. Because Buchholz is unable to finish seasons, his value to the team isn't as great as his statistics. It forces us to throw a lesser pitcher out there and deal with the consequences. His real war is his minus his replacement's. Unless you want to deal a prospect like Iglesias for his replacement:) But we know who the replacement will be. It's a choice of two of Wright, Owens, and Johnson (one will either be dealt or the 5th starter). Whoever that guy is will be better than replacement level; in fact, you know that I think Wright, who seems likeliest to be the guy, has a good chance to be better than average.
When you have a guy who averages $18M of value a year even with his injuries (Edit: this year, as jimoh estimated, he was 55% of a 4.8 bWAR / 5.7 fWAR pitcher), and you can get him for $13M, you do it. Period. DDo has already announced he's doing it if Buchholz is healthy. It's about as startling as his saying that JBJ will start in the OF next year. Can we please stop wasting time disagreeing over what is already a done and entirely obvious decision? Yes, we know it bothers you all when Buchholz gets hurt. That's the only thing that's driving the desire to let him go: that you don't like the fact that he gets hurt.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 29, 2015 13:27:33 GMT -5
If Buchholz is healthy? I consider a pitcher who makes 30 starts healthy. If you haven't, you're not healthy. That's an easy out if you don't want to bring him back. I'd pick up his option and trade him.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Aug 29, 2015 13:57:27 GMT -5
But we know who the replacement will be. It's a choice of two of Wright, Owens, and Johnson (one will either be dealt or the 5th starter). Whoever that guy is will be better than replacement level; in fact, you know that I think Wright, who seems likeliest to be the guy, has a good chance to be better than average.
When you have a guy who averages $18M of value a year even with his injuries (Edit: this year, as jimoh estimated, he was 55% of a 4.8 bWAR / 5.7 fWAR pitcher), and you can get him for $13M, you do it. Period. DDo has already announced he's doing it if Buchholz is healthy. It's about as startling as his saying that JBJ will start in the OF next year. Can we please stop wasting time disagreeing over what is already a done and entirely obvious decision? Yes, we know it bothers you all when Buchholz gets hurt. That's the only thing that's driving the desire to let him go: that you don't like the fact that he gets hurt. Eric, I want to preface this by saying I am a huge fan of what you bring to this board. But in this case I think you are dug in and not seeing some of the other factors that make Buchholz a potential drag on the 2016 roster: - When you state we know who will step in for Buch if/when he gets hurt you are making the assumption that all 4 other starters will not go on the DL. You absolutely have to factor in the lost productivity when determining the value of any starter, and be open to the fact that some of those starts will need to be made by a journeyman AAA arm. - You're assuming Johnson and Owens will both be reilable and at least league average starters, which is partiularly dangerous when discussing Johnson (Health). And this is assuming Wright is the #5 (my hope) and performing well, also not a given. - Those of us who don't like the fact Buchholz gets hurt probably also don't like his long stretches of poor performance too. Granted he was as good as he's ever been the first half of this year, but when was the last time he put 2 seasons of great performance together back to back? - DDo sounds to me like he's trying in many circumstances to maximize the trade value of everyone right now, with his praise for the 3 young OF's, trying Hanley at 1B, and now in what he said about Clay. Very smart, but even with his comment I don't see it as a slam dunk he's on our 2016 roster. I'm not really saying your wrong, you very well could be correct. And a transformed Joe Kelly could improve the depth enough to make gambling on a healthy Buchholz worth the risk. But there is absolutely, 100% a logical 2nd side to this debate that shouldn't be overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Aug 29, 2015 15:18:49 GMT -5
When discussing Buchholz and injury it should be noted that he was originally put on the 15 day DL. After getting at least a second and third opinion (none of which suggested surgery) it was thought that another 7 day stint would be all that was needed for Clay to begin re-hab and possibly join the roster. A total of 30 days MIA or 6 starts. Problem was this 30 day hiatus coincided with the team plunging into last place, and the approach of the trading deadline. It was all too obvious that the Sox were going to be sellers, not buyers. There being no need for Buchholz, he was placed o the 60 day DL. The trading deadline came and went. Victorino and Napoli were jettisoned. Shaw and Bradley were brought up. The bullpen experimented with numerous call ups (with little success) and with Clay still on the DL, starts were parceled out to Barnes, Johnson, Wright and Owens. Point being, Clay was on the shelf for far longer than need be, given the plight of the team and the desire to separate the wheat from the chaff with regard to MLB ready pitching prospects. I think it worked (or at least for me it did).
Enter a new GM (or the equivalent) with a proven track record of signing top tier free agent pitching. I get the speculation. I am not on board. Keep in mind Dombrowski, while having fantastic talent and going to two World Series he has never built a bullpen that was better than mediocre at best. Compare that to Sabean, who attracted very good talent but also built a quality bullpen.... and won 3 World Series titles in 5 years.
I am almost on board with the idea that we already have the starting pitching. Almost. Regardless of whether we do or do not, we don't have have a quality bullpen and we don't have a front office that seems to know how to build and maintain one.
|
|
|