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.
Choose Your Own Adventure: You're Dave Dombrowski!
|
Post by jmei on Nov 20, 2015 11:11:54 GMT -5
It may just be me & I could be wrong, but it seems more often than not, guys who sign their last big contract in their early 30's don't have anything more to "strive" for or injuries take over (M Upton, J Bay, Pablo, Pedro, Mike Hampton, Zito, Werth, Crawford, Pujols (to an extent), Josh Hamilton, Sabathia, Johan Santana...ect ect ect ect) Texeira been a wash....Even subconsciously, these guys won't run through a wall for you to save that out, or play through an injury. If I'm an owner, I'd stay way from these "last" contracts & stick with the Porcello type deals or pre-arb guys where they're still playing for something. I know some have worked out, just seems to be a 1 out of 5 at best. You're conflating age-related decline with lack of "want". Pretty much all players in their 30s decline, whether they're signed to a long-term contract or not. There is reason to prefer younger players, but it's not because older players stop "striving".
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 20, 2015 12:03:43 GMT -5
No, you're not. Clay may have been a 3 win player in 1/2 a season last year, but what are the odds he does that again this year? He's coming off an elbow injury that was severe enough to shut him down for 3 months. He's never been consistently good, and has the frame of a pitcher who typically breaks down as they get into their 30's. I'm surprised that many of the same people here who are leery of signing pitchers in their 30's are also just as certain Clay is a great bet to return to elite status after an elbow injury, and thus is a huge bargain at $13M. He's a huge risk if you're penciling him into your #1 or 2 slot in the rotation and he's definitely going to limit your ability to get two of a top OF (Heyward, etc), #1 Starter, and additional reliever. Not to mention, trading him now may net you one of those 3 needs while freeing up the cash to do the other two with premium players. You don't see the difference in Clays contract compared to what the 30 year olds on the market are going to get? Clays is two one year options at what 12.5 million. Masterson got one year 10 million last year, who would you rather gamble on? Sure its a gamble he might be really good, ok or very bad. He might make 10, 20, 30 or zero starts. But for 12.5 million you might get 3-5 WAR's, that's a gamble any big market team would love to make. It's the same type of gamble the Dodgers took with Brett Anderson last year. The saying there are no bad one year contracts applies here. Now would I sign Clay to a 3-5 year deal at 12.5 million? No way, the one year deal is what makes his high salary worth it.
Clay in no way limits your ability to sign anyone. We aren't going after Heyward or Upton, we don't need them enough to pay those huge price tags. I would say there is a small chance they go after Gordon if his contract demands are well below a 100 million.
If you feel Clay is not worth his current contract, how do we trade him and fill a need at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 20, 2015 12:18:40 GMT -5
I believe he's definitely worth 13 & most clubs would value that. He could/should be a valuable chip if we need another piece (OF, BP) if we replace him in the rotation. Like many fans though, it is sometime difficult to keep hopes up that he will turn into a 190 IP starter.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 20, 2015 12:29:11 GMT -5
Just remember with Buchholz, it has always taken him awhile to get his mechanics back after an injury for whatever reason. This could be the first time he doesn't, but I wouldn't count on him being the 3 win pitcher in a half season he was last year. I'm sure other teams have noticed that also so I wouldn't expect a lot in a trade. They definitely would be selling low on him IMO. The problem with Buchholz is that you don't want to trade him when he's good because he's too good, but it's also hard to trade him when he's not good or just injured.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Nov 20, 2015 12:33:54 GMT -5
I wasn't comparing him to any specific person, just pointing out that a big talking point here is the risk of a pitcher being over 30 but with Clay I've never seen it mentioned once. I'd prefer neither, and never said I did. So we just sign a bunch of pitchers who are coming off injury and have a history of it, hoping one of them works out? I kind of agree and that is why I wanted to sign Rich Hill (Hill starts the season, Buchholz finishes, if both are healthy and productive its a bonus). If they can find another low cost, high value arm to double down on I'm fine with that. Anderson is well under 30. Didn't you just reference Justin Masterson's deal? We differ in opinion here. I'd prefer at this point to see an upgrade and let Castillo be my 4th OF unless we can package him with Buchholz for a need. Just like any other part of life, risk is all relative. A team with a closing window (Pirates?) or a team that may not get the SP they wanted in free agency (Dodgers?) may be more motivated to make a trade. I don't see him returning anything other than a reliable setup man, but with that and the contract it would be worth it to me because you can upgrade in the OF AND add a SP along the lines of Cueto/Price/Grienke.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 20, 2015 13:59:00 GMT -5
Just remember with Buchholz, it has always taken him awhile to get his mechanics back after an injury for whatever reason. This could be the first time he doesn't, but I wouldn't count on him being the 3 win pitcher in a half season he was last year. I'm sure other teams have noticed that also so I wouldn't expect a lot in a trade. They definitely would be selling low on him IMO. The problem with Buchholz is that you don't want to trade him when he's good because he's too good, but it's also hard to trade him when he's not good or just injured. Spot on. Buchholz always seems to have the same pattern. Get hurt. Come back and struggle mightily. Make you want to pull your hair out and send him to AAA. Give up on him. Watch him throw a dazzling 2 hit shut out instead. Watch Buchholz dominate for a few months. Think to yourself, this guy is good enough to be an ace. Watch him get hurt. Loop back to the beginning. It's like programming a macro. I wouldn't deal Buchholz unless I get value for him, but at this point, unless another team is willing to take a chance on him coming back healthy, you won't get value for him, so that defeats the point, and if he struggles, you can't get rid of him, and if he pitches like his dominant self, who else can you get to pitch better and make less money? It's the Clay conundrum.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 20, 2015 14:50:30 GMT -5
I wasn't comparing him to any specific person, just pointing out that a big talking point here is the risk of a pitcher being over 30 but with Clay I've never seen it mentioned once. I'd prefer neither, and never said I did. So we just sign a bunch of pitchers who are coming off injury and have a history of it, hoping one of them works out? I kind of agree and that is why I wanted to sign Rich Hill (Hill starts the season, Buchholz finishes, if both are healthy and productive its a bonus). If they can find another low cost, high value arm to double down on I'm fine with that. Anderson is well under 30. Didn't you just reference Justin Masterson's deal? We differ in opinion here. I'd prefer at this point to see an upgrade and let Castillo be my 4th OF unless we can package him with Buchholz for a need. Just like any other part of life, risk is all relative. A team with a closing window (Pirates?) or a team that may not get the SP they wanted in free agency (Dodgers?) may be more motivated to make a trade. I don't see him returning anything other than a reliable setup man, but with that and the contract it would be worth it to me because you can upgrade in the OF AND add a SP along the lines of Cueto/Price/Grienke. When did I say the Masterson deal was bad? I thought it was a good gamble. My point was that Masterson for 10 million makes Clay look like a steal at 12.5 million. Don't you get that the pitcher being 30 or older isn't the issue? Its that he is going to get a 5-7 year deal, its what he is going to be like at 34, 35, 36 and 37 years old, not 30. For a lot of players age 28-32 seasons are prime years. So with Clay we are getting prime years without having to pay for a bunch of non prime years. I have no problem paying Price 30 plus million for his age 30-32 seasons, its the back half of that deal that scares me. I don't care how old Anderson was, he was just like Clay, if healthy chances are they will be good, but you can't trust them to be healthy. It'd the exact same kind of signing, high risk high reward.
As for Trading Clay and getting a reliable set up man, that's never going to happen. Here's why not many relievers are reliable, only the elite ones and clays value is no where near that. Look at Ross and Varvaro last year. When we got them they were both seen as reliable relievers and both had bad years. Unless you are elite there is no such thing as a reliable reliever.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Nov 20, 2015 21:12:50 GMT -5
Masterson WAS a bad deal, wasted resources that went to someone who had red flags all over the place while we let both Lester and Miller walk - two healthy and productive arms - because we didn't want to risk the back end of their deals being bad. So instead we got a bad front end, another last place finish, and here we are trying to fill those exact same two holes this year.
I obviously don't know Clay's medicals, but his long history suggests he has a lot of red flags as well. Not a gamble I want us to take, I'd rather reallocate that salary to signing better players and get 50 cents on the dollar while I can, but that is just my opinion and I'm aware it's a minority opinion here.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Nov 20, 2015 21:46:03 GMT -5
Masterson WAS a bad deal, wasted resources that went to someone who had red flags all over the place while we let both Lester and Miller walk - two healthy and productive arms - because we didn't want to risk the back end of their deals being bad. So instead we got a bad front end, another last place finish, and here we are trying to fill those exact same two holes this year. I obviously don't know Clay's medicals, but his long history suggests he has a lot of red flags as well. Not a gamble I want us to take, I'd rather reallocate that salary to signing better players and get 50 cents on the dollar while I can, but that is just my opinion and I'm aware it's a minority opinion here. If we land greinke or price then I'd say shop clay for a prospect or maybe a 4rth outfielder or pen arm that still has a reasonable contract. I don't want to give up on him but it's a way to help pallet the 30 plus M$ a year those guys cost. If for whatever reason we can't land a big time FA, I think it's best to hold onto Clay and hope for 15-20 healthy starts.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 20, 2015 22:21:40 GMT -5
Masterson WAS a bad deal, wasted resources that went to someone who had red flags all over the place while we let both Lester and Miller walk - two healthy and productive arms - because we didn't want to risk the back end of their deals being bad. So instead we got a bad front end, another last place finish, and here we are trying to fill those exact same two holes this year. I obviously don't know Clay's medicals, but his long history suggests he has a lot of red flags as well. Not a gamble I want us to take, I'd rather reallocate that salary to signing better players and get 50 cents on the dollar while I can, but that is just my opinion and I'm aware it's a minority opinion here. Did they know he was throwing 87-89 at the time of that deal? I wonder if they just thought it was going to tick up in spring or what
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 21, 2015 9:03:06 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks a salary dump trade with Buchholz, assuming you sign a free agent starter, is best for this team? Rotation: Price/Greinke/cueto/Samardzija Porcello E-Rod Miley Kelly/Owens Is preferable to me than having Bucholz near this team. Not only do I prefer to give Kelly or Owens the innings, but I'd love to see them then spend that money in the bullpen. Hell Jmei can maybe get his ODay binky: Kimbrel Koji FA: ODay/Soria/Madson Taz Layne Wright Winner of ST competition To me Buchholz is a black hole wasted salary spot. And I was a Clay guy, big time, but last year broke me. He's useless, potentially hurtful even. Time to move on. Last year, when he was a nearly three-win player, "broke you?" Even if we assume that he's going to be hurt half the year or something, wouldn't half a season of Buchholz and half a season of, say, Owens be better than the full season of Owens? Also not sure why the Red Sox need a salary dump. They don't need to clear payroll space to make moves or anything. Sorry for the delayed response, but yes. I've explained this before, but it's the cycle that you can no longer deny. He will have an effective streak ranging from very good to best in baseball. He will get injured and he will be terrible for a stretch or likely stretches. He's soft, can't pitch if he's not 100% or close to it and is unreliable. This is another area where WAR gets you in trouble. Just because he was a 3 WAR player in 2015 does not mean he's good for your team going forward. Also, since it's unpredictable when he's going to be injured or ineffective and it has a domino affect on the team that's hard to measure, I don't know why you want to roll with a guy like that when you don't have to. I want the salary dump to reallocate the assets to another part of the team. Such as the bullpen. Get another top notch guy there and get Clay off the team. It's about the team being better wth Kelly/Owens in the rotation and another top bullpen piece than they are with Clay in the rotation and a weaker bullpen. Joe Kelly may suck but he's a lot younger and seemed to maybe figure something out last year changing his style and getting better results. This all relies on then signing a top starter as you have to gamble with Clay should they fail there.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 21, 2015 9:09:41 GMT -5
Ross was not seen as a reliable set up man when they got him and Vavaro got injured.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Nov 22, 2015 13:13:36 GMT -5
I've noticed that Dombrowski keeps emphasizing that he wants a SP and a RHH in the outfield. Why not a LHH? We have the following outfield options in-house: RHH Mookie Betts who should play everyday LHH Jackie Bradley, who hasn't shown much of a split in his career despite being a lefty (unless you think the reverse split is real, and not going to move towards a more normal neutral split) RHH Rusney Castillo, whose ability to hit MLB pitching is a question mark and who has a very strong split LHH Brock Holt, who doesn't have a split
It seems like the biggest question mark and most platoonable of the outfielders is Castillo. He plays the easiest defensive position of the three (LF), he has the biggest split, and he's quite likely the weakest overall hitter. Why isn't the goal to get a 4th outfielder who can split time with him?
|
|
|
Post by jiant2520 on Nov 22, 2015 13:47:44 GMT -5
I've noticed that Dombrowski keeps emphasizing that he wants a SP and a RHH in the outfield. Why not a LHH? We have the following outfield options in-house: RHH Mookie Betts who should play everyday LHH Jackie Bradley, who hasn't shown much of a split in his career despite being a lefty (unless you think the reverse split is real, and not going to move towards a more normal neutral split) RHH Rusney Castillo, whose ability to hit MLB pitching is a question mark and who has a very strong split LHH Brock Holt, who doesn't have a split It seems like the biggest question mark and most platoonable of the outfielders is Castillo. He plays the easiest defensive position of the three (LF), he has the biggest split, and he's quite likely the weakest overall hitter. Why isn't the goal to get a 4th outfielder who can split time with him? I agree. Getting someone to platoon with Castillo should be on the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 22, 2015 14:02:28 GMT -5
Short answer for RHH outfielder preference: they already have Holt and Shaw (who hit lefty) on the roster and will be in the mix for fourth outfielder reps.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Nov 22, 2015 14:27:11 GMT -5
Just remember with Buchholz, it has always taken him awhile to get his mechanics back after an injury for whatever reason. This could be the first time he doesn't, but I wouldn't count on him being the 3 win pitcher in a half season he was last year. I'm sure other teams have noticed that also so I wouldn't expect a lot in a trade. They definitely would be selling low on him IMO. The problem with Buchholz is that you don't want to trade him when he's good because he's too good, but it's also hard to trade him when he's not good or just injured. Good sum up. He makes me want to bang my head against a wall, but I'm short enough brain cells.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 22, 2015 16:39:31 GMT -5
Just remember with Buchholz, it has always taken him awhile to get his mechanics back after an injury for whatever reason. This could be the first time he doesn't, but I wouldn't count on him being the 3 win pitcher in a half season he was last year. I'm sure other teams have noticed that also so I wouldn't expect a lot in a trade. They definitely would be selling low on him IMO. The problem with Buchholz is that you don't want to trade him when he's good because he's too good, but it's also hard to trade him when he's not good or just injured. Good sum up. He makes me want to bang my head against a wall, but I'm short enough brain cells. DD listing Buch as our second starter on the radio today makes me think he's not actively imagining any scenarios where he trades him. Could change, but pretty telling.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Nov 22, 2015 18:54:32 GMT -5
Short answer for RHH outfielder preference: they already have Holt and Shaw (who hit lefty) on the roster and will be in the mix for fourth outfielder reps. OK thanks. If Shaw can play left field that would be tremendous for our offense. Has he been considered an OF in the past? Or is it a new position for him now that his bat appears to be an asset?
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Nov 22, 2015 19:21:10 GMT -5
Good sum up. He makes me want to bang my head against a wall, but I'm short enough brain cells. DD listing Buch as our second starter on the radio today makes me think he's not actively imagining any scenarios where he trades him. Could change, but pretty telling. Can't ever take to the bank anything a GM says this time of year. A lot can change in the next few months. Pretty sure if we sign Greinke or Price they will be looking to create payroll space. Buch/Miley/Porcello. One of them would probably be on the move.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 22, 2015 21:26:41 GMT -5
Short answer for RHH outfielder preference: they already have Holt and Shaw (who hit lefty) on the roster and will be in the mix for fourth outfielder reps. OK thanks. If Shaw can play left field that would be tremendous for our offense. Has he been considered an OF in the past? Or is it a new position for him now that his bat appears to be an asset? He's played it some in the past and will likely get more reps there going forward since his likely role on the MLB team will be as a bench guy.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 22, 2015 21:30:39 GMT -5
DD listing Buch as our second starter on the radio today makes me think he's not actively imagining any scenarios where he trades him. Could change, but pretty telling. Can't ever take to the bank anything a GM says this time of year. A lot can change in the next few months. Pretty sure if we sign Greinke or Price they will be looking to create payroll space. Buch/Miley/Porcello. One of them would probably be on the move. Yeahhh... I just don't think Buch would be moved for payroll. They're geared up to be way over the luxury tax, and Buch is gone after this year anyway. I'm not saying they won't move him, just saying if they do it'll be to open up a rotation spot while protecting longer term assets like Miley/Kelly.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 22, 2015 21:53:11 GMT -5
Short answer for RHH outfielder preference: they already have Holt and Shaw (who hit lefty) on the roster and will be in the mix for fourth outfielder reps. I'm interested in both who they get for the 4th OF spot and for the 6th-7th OF spot--a Milb free agent who can play at Pawtucket and maybe have a charmed 2-3 weeks in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 22, 2015 22:16:21 GMT -5
Can't ever take to the bank anything a GM says this time of year. A lot can change in the next few months. Pretty sure if we sign Greinke or Price they will be looking to create payroll space. Buch/Miley/Porcello. One of them would probably be on the move. Yeahhh... I just don't think Buch would be moved for payroll. They're geared up to be way over the luxury tax, and Buch is gone after this year anyway. I'm not saying they won't move him, just saying if they do it'll be to open up a rotation spot while protecting longer term assets like Miley/Kelly. There are two team options on Clay, not one, both low cost: 2016 Team Option: $13M ($0.2M buyout) 2017 Team Option: $13.5M ($0.5M buyout)
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 22, 2015 22:49:11 GMT -5
Yeahhh... I just don't think Buch would be moved for payroll. They're geared up to be way over the luxury tax, and Buch is gone after this year anyway. I'm not saying they won't move him, just saying if they do it'll be to open up a rotation spot while protecting longer term assets like Miley/Kelly. There are two team options on Clay, not one, both low cost: 2016 Team Option: $13M ($0.2M buyout) 2017 Team Option: $13.5M ($0.5M buyout) Oh that's right. Well still, they can always let him go next year.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 23, 2015 9:24:32 GMT -5
Just remember with Buchholz, it has always taken him awhile to get his mechanics back after an injury for whatever reason. This could be the first time he doesn't, but I wouldn't count on him being the 3 win pitcher in a half season he was last year. I'm sure other teams have noticed that also so I wouldn't expect a lot in a trade. They definitely would be selling low on him IMO. The problem with Buchholz is that you don't want to trade him when he's good because he's too good, but it's also hard to trade him when he's not good or just injured. Good sum up. He makes me want to bang my head against a wall, but I'm short enough brain cells. That's the million dollar question. We'll trade him early in the year when he's succeeding, but then you run the risk that he's figured it out & his body will enable to go a full year of #1 stuff. I'd say for what we'd get back, you have to roll the dice with him & if he craps out, he craps out. IF we get a #1 via FA, who would you move, Buccholz for a smaller piece, or Miley?
|
|
|