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 grandsalami on Jul 31, 2016 19:29:55 GMT -5
Alex Speier @alexspeier 28m28 minutes ago Buchholz said his arm slot had fallen gradually since '13. He looked at data w/Bannister to adjust release point close to where it had been. Alex Speier @alexspeier 28m28 minutes ago Result has been improved depth and quality of stuff. Rob Bradford @bradfo 34m34 minutes ago Buchholz said he discovered arm angle had dropped significantly since due to injuries. Arm is back up and results are evident Tim Britton @timbritton 35m35 minutes ago C/o @brooksbaseball, how Buchholz's arm slot had dropped since 2013. Seeing better results as he's moved it back up:
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 31, 2016 19:53:17 GMT -5
The all-caps may have been unnecessary, as we will probably want to wait this one out. I'm excited for the guy, and he got results this afternoon... one afternoon, of one day, in a week of games, in a long, long season.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 31, 2016 20:19:52 GMT -5
Stretch him out for a start.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 31, 2016 20:34:18 GMT -5
Stretch him out for a start. Too bad he didn't figure it out before the Espinoza trade. No room for Clay in the rotation, and pulling Pomeranz kills his already damaged value.
|
|
|
Post by coke0myfavdrink on Jul 31, 2016 20:40:05 GMT -5
Stretch him out for a start. Too bad he didn't figure it out before the Espinoza trade. No room for Clay in the rotation, and pulling Pomeranz kills his already damaged value. 6 man rotation for a couple weeks?
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jul 31, 2016 20:45:14 GMT -5
No hitter the next time out or it's a paddlin for you.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 31, 2016 21:03:53 GMT -5
Too bad he didn't figure it out before the Espinoza trade. No room for Clay in the rotation, and pulling Pomeranz kills his already damaged value. 6 man rotation for a couple weeks? No point...you want your top-3 to pitch as much as possible. Maybe it gets Clay traded, but I doubt it. Looks just to be bad timing resulting in a questionable trade. I like Pomeranz, but he's basically confirmed all of my concerns about his acquisition, and at a cost I didn't (and obviously still don't) agree with.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 31, 2016 23:29:11 GMT -5
LOL Keep drinking the front office Kool-Aid on this player.
Arm slot my arse. It's called "trade value" if anything.
? Why didn't Willis or Farrel or better yet Clay himself figure this out?
Bye bye Clay, Josh is waiting
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 31, 2016 23:37:34 GMT -5
Buchholz had great movement in his pitches today.
I have no idea if his arm slot change contributed to how well he did today, but I do know this:
When he is fixed and his delivery working and he finishes all his pitches, then you get a great pitcher for about 100 innings give or take, before something on his body breaks down.
Then when he gets healthy again, you have to start all over again fixing the delivery, it is a viscous cycle.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Aug 1, 2016 0:22:01 GMT -5
Edited the tittle. No need for ALL CAPS.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 1, 2016 1:16:20 GMT -5
If this is a real "thing" then anyone associated with the pitching staff needs to be fired immediately.
How does no one notice this constant change over the course of 3 years? It's not like he's some back end bullpen guy, he was their opening day starter last year.
I mean, apparently Dustin Pedroia noticed a change in Price, so maybe this wouldn't be so surprising.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Aug 1, 2016 1:29:36 GMT -5
6 man rotation for a couple weeks? No point...you want your top-3 to pitch as much as possible. Maybe it gets Clay traded, but I doubt it. Looks just to be bad timing resulting in a questionable trade. I like Pomeranz, but he's basically confirmed all of my concerns about his acquisition, and at a cost I didn't (and obviously still don't) agree with. This is total B.S. Hypocritical B.S, to be exact. You hated this trade and you hate the very concept of selling prospects for veterans. I know this because you have posted variations on this theme hundreds of times in this very forum. That is your position, your bias, and you defend it well. But please continue to defend that bias well and refrain from grabbing the nearest lame-*** argument to support that bias. You are a smart guy and you know you are brewing up a weak-*** sauce when you cite a three game sample to "confirm" anything. I know this because you are one of the many who will pummel others who make sweeping generalizations based on tiny sample sizes. If the tables were turned, and Pomeranz was dealing, you know damn well that you would be talking about needing to take the long view and it would be years before we could evaluate the trade blah blah blah. But now you are confirming it was a bad trade because Pomeranz has looked bad for 3 games. (And tulips. Yeah, don't forget about those tulips.....) And somehow, inexplicably, you use the the fact that Clay Buchholz, f'ing Clay Buchholz, Mr. Inconsistency himself, had three good innings to support your argument that it was a bad trade. We get it. You didn't like the trade. You think it was a bad idea. But get a grip. This forum is a whole lot better when people don't feel the need to "win" every freaking disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 1, 2016 2:33:13 GMT -5
No point...you want your top-3 to pitch as much as possible. Maybe it gets Clay traded, but I doubt it. Looks just to be bad timing resulting in a questionable trade. I like Pomeranz, but he's basically confirmed all of my concerns about his acquisition, and at a cost I didn't (and obviously still don't) agree with. This is total B.S. Hypocritical B.S, to be exact. You hated this trade and you hate the very concept of selling prospects for veterans. I know this because you have posted variations on this theme hundreds of times in this very forum. That is your position, your bias, and you defend it well. But please continue to defend that bias well and refrain from grabbing the nearest lame-*** argument to support that bias. You are a smart guy and you know you are brewing up a weak-*** sauce when you cite a three game sample to "confirm" anything. I know this because you are one of the many who will pummel others who make sweeping generalizations based on tiny sample sizes. If the tables were turned, and Pomeranz was dealing, you know damn well that you would be talking about needing to take the long view and it would be years before we could evaluate the trade blah blah blah. But now you are confirming it was a bad trade because Pomeranz has looked bad for 3 games. (And tulips. Yeah, don't forget about those tulips.....) And somehow, inexplicably, you use the the fact that Clay Buchholz, f'ing Clay Buchholz, Mr. Inconsistency himself, had three good innings to support your argument that it was a bad trade. We get it. You didn't like the trade. You think it was a bad idea. But get a grip. This forum is a whole lot better when people don't feel the need to "win" every freaking disagreement. You do know you can like a player and still hate a trade, yes? So, you'd still like the deal if they gave up Moncada, Devers, Espinoza, and Benintendi? I liked Pomeranz before the deal but hated the price. I think a 6 man or something of that ilk might be a good idea because Pomeranz needs to start limiting his innings so he can be more effective next year. Unfortunately, 3 innings of solid work is the ultimate SSS.
|
|
|
Post by barney27 on Aug 1, 2016 6:19:48 GMT -5
I think a key point has been made here. Forget clay. The interest is the sox pitcher development model. Is it broke ? Maybe the best trade or free agent pickup is to recruit the pitching coaches from tampa, pirates, or san fran. Those guys seem to have a track record over a long time that says they know pitching because they get results.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 1, 2016 6:43:16 GMT -5
Stretch him out for a start. Too bad he didn't figure it out before the Espinoza trade. No room for Clay in the rotation, and pulling Pomeranz kills his already damaged value. C'mon man, damaged value because of 1 good start, 1 bad start and 1 meh start?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 1, 2016 10:04:09 GMT -5
Too bad he didn't figure it out before the Espinoza trade. No room for Clay in the rotation, and pulling Pomeranz kills his already damaged value. C'mon man, damaged value because of 1 good start, 1 bad start and 1 meh start? Absolutely. If Dombrowski tried to flip him right now, I think most GMs would hold his Red Sox performance against him. Averaging less than 5 IP per start and an ERA over 7? I'm certain that other GMs would use his time in Boston to lower the bid. If he'd pitched 25 shutout innings and whiffed 30, you don't think that would've raised his value? Now, I don't think a three start stretch *fundamentally* changes his worth as a pitcher, but as a trade commodity...that's another story. Perception is a large part of that reality, just look at the RP market insanity.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 1, 2016 10:07:48 GMT -5
I think a key point has been made here. Forget clay. The interest is the sox pitcher development model. Is it broke ? Maybe the best trade or free agent pickup is to recruit the pitching coaches from tampa, pirates, or san fran. Those guys seem to have a track record over a long time that says they know pitching because they get results. Well, SF is a drastically pitching-favorable park, and TB is pretty favorable to pitching, too. So that's part of the perception. Ray Searage, OTOH, seems pretty adept at scrap-heap recovery. But the logistics of a lateral move for a pitching coach are prohibitive.
|
|
|
Post by cto94 on Aug 1, 2016 10:10:58 GMT -5
C'mon man, damaged value because of 1 good start, 1 bad start and 1 meh start? Absolutely. If Dombrowski tried to flip him right now, I think most GMs would hold his Red Sox performance against him. Averaging less than 5 IP per start and an ERA over 7? I'm certain that other GMs would use his time in Boston to lower the bid. If he'd pitched 25 shutout innings and whiffed 30, you don't think that would've raised his value? Now, I don't think a three start stretch *fundamentally* changes his worth as a pitcher, but as a trade commodity...that's another story. Perception is a large part of that reality, just look at the RP market insanity. When was the last time a team gave up a prospect as highly ranked for a major league player of any kind and then dealt him 2 weeks later? I can't call any to mind, and the idea that Dombrowski is/was ever planning to turn around and flip Pomeranz strikes me as somewhat absurd. Even if he did, I'm sure that might be a negotiating tactic that other teams might use, but it would be pretty easy to call anyone's bluff on that- no GM is going to legitimately believe that 3 starts (2 starts really for the sake of your argument because one of them was impressive) are more indicative of his performance than the 100+ innings he threw before being dealt, and I would imagine Dombrowski knows that
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
Member is Online
|
Post by atzar on Aug 1, 2016 10:41:23 GMT -5
I think a key point has been made here. Forget clay. The interest is the sox pitcher development model. Is it broke ? Maybe the best trade or free agent pickup is to recruit the pitching coaches from tampa, pirates, or san fran. Those guys seem to have a track record over a long time that says they know pitching because they get results. I tend to agree with this. We've had a pile of decent-to-good pitching prospects come through here in the last several years. Nearly all of them have failed; the only notable success is Steven Wright, a natural outlier for obvious reasons. You can only watch the steady stream of supposed 'potential #3/#4 starters' fizzle out for so long before you start to wonder whether there's more at play here than just TINSTAAPP.
|
|
|
Post by jbuttah on Aug 1, 2016 11:03:07 GMT -5
In yesterday's game against the Angels, Buchholz looked good enough to hold out hope that he can step in for Pomeranz once he reaches an innings limit, assuming he has one. I saw a couple of 95mph fastballs, and a breaking ball that had great depth, think it was the curve. Also good command within the strike zone. It was the command and control of the breaking pitches that really stood out for me.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Aug 1, 2016 11:03:22 GMT -5
I think a key point has been made here. Forget clay. The interest is the sox pitcher development model. Is it broke ? Maybe the best trade or free agent pickup is to recruit the pitching coaches from tampa, pirates, or san fran. Those guys seem to have a track record over a long time that says they know pitching because they get results. I tend to agree with this. We've had a pile of decent-to-good pitching prospects come through here in the last several years. Nearly all of them have failed; the only notable success is Steven Wright, a natural outlier for obvious reasons. You can only watch the steady stream of supposed 'potential #3/#4 starters' fizzle out for so long before you start to wonder whether there's more at play here than just TINSTAAPP. Player and Minor league development led by a former GM who lost 100 plus games in 3 of 6 years with KC. Do the math.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 618
|
Post by alnipper on Aug 1, 2016 12:00:26 GMT -5
I would keep Clay for SP depth. With Wright might missing starts due to weather, I see the Sox hanging onto him. If he ends the year really strong then trade him in the offseason. If he stinks again, then don't pick up his 2017 option obviously.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 1, 2016 14:46:00 GMT -5
I would keep Clay for SP depth. With Wright might missing starts due to weather, I see the Sox hanging onto him. If he ends the year really strong then trade him in the offseason. If he stinks again, then don't pick up his 2017 option obviously. There's a scenario where Johnson is lights-out for most of August and Owens is good (or vice versa), and they trade Buchholz for real prospects(s) in a waiver deal. Much more likely, he's kept as absolutely necessary SP depth. In 2013 I thought the had more SP depth than they do now, and the F.O. felt it was so precarious that they traded for Peavy (yes, that was entirely a depth trade rather than a rotation-needs-to-be-better trade, per Tom Tippett).
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Aug 1, 2016 15:04:43 GMT -5
Buchholz and Trey Ball look like the henchmen for a supervillain.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Aug 1, 2016 15:26:01 GMT -5
Buchholz wont clear waivers.
|
|
|