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 jimed14 on Mar 16, 2017 9:26:56 GMT -5
Maybe I'm not setting as high of a bar for 7th starter as you guys are. I'm not stating anything that crazy. Replacement level is all I expect out of a 7th starter that can be kept in the minors.
It's also somewhat encouraging that Kendrick pitched with shoulder pain last year and he says it's gone now.
|
|
|
Post by bspeed on Mar 16, 2017 11:59:59 GMT -5
do you guys know what depth starter means...it means a guy that's not very good and is around to make a spot start here or there. the idea is to have your top 5 make all their starts. teams don't typically have all stars stashed away in AAA to be depth starters...why? Because they're major league pitchers that don't want to pitch in AAA...duh.
So did you guys want to win now or wait two or three years until Espinosa and Kopech might be ready. DD trades prospects...GET OVER IT.
Not sure how you guys always want to build build build for the future...when exactly should they go for it? You guys may not want to hear this but the Sox have one of the youngest rosters in baseball...
Where did you have Margot playing this year and the next 2 or 3? Asuaje? Guerra? Basabe? Moncada? You guys do realize that eventually you lose guys to the rule 5 because they aren't on the 40 man? they only have so much room and top prospects don't usually fair to well sitting on the bench in the majors. was the plan for Margot...a top prospect to be the 5th OF'er? Moncada to be the starter at third? OK...but it's pretty bad to have a veteran like Sandoval sitting on the bench earning what he earns...my guess is he probably would'nt respond well and might become a problem in the clubhouse.
In closing I love how supposed Sox fans do nothing but complain about the state of the team. I for one have been pretty happy for the last 15 years or so. They are usually a fun team to watch...not always but more than not
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 16, 2017 12:19:55 GMT -5
Margot would have been the fourth outfielder and gotten 200+ PAs (more if there are any injuries to the starters). (Young gets most of his reps at DH.) Asuaje competes with Rutledge for the last bench spot (and probably wins it). Guerra and Basabe are top-5 prospects in the system, ready for future trades or to step up to the major league team in a few years. Moncada competes with Sandoval for the starting 3B spot. If Sandoval loses that competition, he gets traded or cut. Without Moncada, if Sandoval turns out to still be bad notwithstanding the weight loss, the next man up is either Holt playing out of position or a replacement-level guy like Rutledge.
|
|
|
Post by bspeed on Mar 16, 2017 12:47:32 GMT -5
I'll just go player by player...
So you want a top 20 prospect in all of baseball sitting on the bench 5 days a week? Won't that hinder his development? So you predict he's a bench player the next 4 years as the current OF is set for quite a while. Young is the fourth OF and a pretty good one actually...were you hoping for injuries so Margot got some PT?
I believe Hanley is slated for most of his reps at DH as they signed a GG first basemen that scouts believe will thrive at Fenway.
Where is Rutledge the bench player...I believe they're leaning toward Marco Hernandez...again a very good prospect you want sitting on the bench in the majors in Asuaje?
Guerra was terrible last year and scouts have long believed his defense far out weighs his bat. I thought he was traded to help the major league team? Some guy named Kimbrel
Basabe...again where does he play in the next four years? I thought you already had a top prospect on the bench? Again wasn't he traded to help the team...some guy named Chris Sale
Moncada competes and wins...great so now you have a three time WS champion making a lot of money sitting on the bench...which you already have pretty crowded...that sends a great message to potential FA signings down the road...better not have a bad season or some injury 'cause you'll lose your job buddy. Also where does that leave Devers next year or the year after? And in what world does anyone take Sandoval? Cut him so they don't already have enough dead money in Craig and Castillo?
How is Holt out of position at third exactly? He's played there more than any other position...unless you count all three OF spots as one...by the way the most games at one OF position is LF at 86.
I just don't see your point I guess. You do realize that at some point guys have to be put on the 40 man roster or risk being taken right. Also they eventually run out of times they can be sent down without passing through waivers.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 16, 2017 13:02:43 GMT -5
Hubbity bubbity
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 16, 2017 13:24:45 GMT -5
You asked where they would be playing if they were still on the team, and you got an answer. He didn't at any point say that it was a use more optimal than what they got in any specific trade. Moncada competes and wins...great so now you have a three time WS champion making a lot of money sitting on the bench...which you already have pretty crowded...that sends a great message to potential FA signings down the road...better not have a bad season or some injury 'cause you'll lose your job buddy. Also where does that leave Devers next year or the year after? And in what world does anyone take Sandoval? Cut him so they don't already have enough dead money in Craig and Castillo? What in the world is this argument? "Sure, he might have made the team better, but having him win the job would have sent a bad message that entrenched, well-paid players don't automatically hold their jobs." I think the Sale trade was a pretty decent one, but this is some very, very backwards logic. You're not just falling into a sunk cost situation: you're defending it as the best approach to decision making, and promoting actively making sure there aren't alternatives in place so that the team isn't tempted to recognize that it has a sunk cost in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by bspeed on Mar 16, 2017 13:52:28 GMT -5
My post wasn't directed at anyone on particular. There was a lot of opinions about the future of the team. My main point was and is that there is only 40 guys that you can keep and at some point players that are a surplus need to be traded or lost for nothing ie jason Garcia, Ryan Presley and so on.
Most if not all of the players DD has traded were traded were surplus aside from Espinosa and Kopech.
At some point you need to decide whether to go for it or not. They're in a window so they're going for it
Most of the posts in this thread were critical of DD's moves. My opinion is that this is what he does, management wanted to make a change in how things were being run and he's done that. So it's time to stop the whining about a guy doing things like he's always done and just enjoy the season.
Just tired of the constant negativity of some Sox fans
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 16, 2017 14:35:43 GMT -5
What an epiphany! How stupid and whingeing we've been. Trading Clay Buchholz for Josh Tobias was the ultimate "going for it now" move. Mea culpa
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Mar 16, 2017 14:50:50 GMT -5
Everyone knows the best way to combat negativity is more negativity, combined with condescension.
|
|
|
Post by bspeed on Mar 16, 2017 14:54:51 GMT -5
They traded him to make sure they can make a move later if they need to and not go over the luxury tax which will reset if they don't.
Are you actually complaining that trading Clay Buchholz was a bad thing?
I believe trading him is an indication they are goi g for it lol. I'd much rather have Hembree than him taking a spot on my roster. $13 million sitting in the bullpen pitching mop up innings isn't money well spent.
Some believe that Tobias is an interesting player that might surprise
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 16, 2017 15:01:32 GMT -5
I've been following the discussion, and it's not surprising that there are people on both sides.
I'll come back to something I wrote when the Kimbrel trade went down. Relievers are as volatile as a wind-blown range fire. It's the nature of the beast. Giving up that many players for that level of uncertainty seems excessive to me. That has little to do with whether they've got a place on the roster, and everything to do with getting more value for those assets.
While I understand the trade for Sale, that it took a lot of value to get that guy, and that the Sox didn't have to give up any of their valuable ML position players to acquire him, it drained a lot more talent from what was already a thin looking system.
I personally think Margot would have had a spot on the ML roster if they'd kept him but that's almost beside the point. My preference would be to use high-value assets - and that's what Margot is in my opinion - for something more than relief help.
Relievers are not strictly fungible, but every year teams capture lighting in a bottle with guys who convert from a starting role, or who emerge from the minors, guys who dominate for a season or two and sometimes longer before flaming out (love those fire analogies).
I think that's a better route than cleaning out your farm system.
|
|
|
Post by bspeed on Mar 16, 2017 15:17:56 GMT -5
My only comment would be if you trace back for the last say last couple decades or so most...not all...but most WS winners have a stud closer and most losers have a closer that imploded or a bullpen with no clear cut closer.
Some see a closer as a thing any guy could do others see it as a stud closer means you win most games you're leading in the 9th
No one is right no one is wrong
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 16, 2017 16:29:48 GMT -5
No one said 2015 doesn't count, but it was 13 starts and they all weren't horrible. Go look at most pitchers they have stretches were they struggle. Your idea that it proves he can't pitch in AL is really just funny. It proves nothing more than he had a bad end to the year. In 2016 he was again one of the top pitchers in majors. Small sample sizes that are outliers usually mean nothing in the long run. I'm sure you thought Porcello couldn't pitch in AL East after 2015 either. You are cherry-picking stats. Interleague stats show you he can pitch against AL teams just fine over many years. Everyone knows the larger the sample size, the more accurate the results become. 30 starts over years is a lot better than 13 starts over a few months at showing you the players true talent. You just can't argue that. And what I said was he was that he was too much risk. If you agree his 13 starts do count-- then you're choosing to ignore the risk. Your BELIEF is that "he just had a bad end of the year." It is YOUR OPINION. It is MY OPINION I wouldn't trust him because as you say and I say--- those 13 starts do count and as you and I say the AL IS different then therefore there is too much risk to go with this guy.
What I find laughable is the use of spot interleague games as a comparable vs a succession of games. Somehow a spot few games in 2008 and 2009 and 2010 is supposed to count similarly to a stretch of successive games in 2015 in which a decision needs to be made to sign him in 2016? That's laughable.
And you can have the last word - I'm done with Cueto subject but you've got to be kidding comparing the Porcello one year in Boston in which he already pitched in the AL and his trend in the AL showed improvement in the prior two years and he was younger -- yet you think that is the same comparison as Cueto? I say NUTS. IMO by using an example like that you just want to be argumentative. Just as your "You probably . . ." comment. It's a deliberate argumentative comment. I'm not going to play.
***Getting back to the overall thread-- I'll reiterate - some try to push a narrative we're doomed after 2019. IMO we can make trades during this year, and each year in the future and get decent to good players to be competitive beyond 2019. I don't agree with the negative narrative from some. Along with pushing that what we gave up in prospects won't eb the return we get when we trade a starter is irrelevant. The SOx are trying to win now. Not "win trades" for 2022 etc.
I thought the Sox made too quick of moves but overall once we got Sale I think it solidifies we're a threat - though moving Clay and getting nothing for him or not getting another starter is a potential blunder. Getting that starter imo is more important than Moreland or Thorny etc. Maybe they gambled on Owens and others because ERod and Pomz- they can't pitch a full season, can they? You're trying to argue against the basic rules of statistics 101. A larger sample size over many years is always better than a smaller sample size over a few months at predicting a players true value. You keep bringing up 2008, 2009 and 2010, but his interleague stats include data from his whole career including last year. By bringing up his early seasons, you seem to trying to prove he's what not that pitcher anymore? His 2016 stats say that he is still a dominant TOR pitcher, like he's been for years now. As to the rest of what you said, go read my comments. I don't think the sky will fall in 2019. I'm not worried, like some people.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 16, 2017 16:51:26 GMT -5
What an epiphany! How stupid and whingeing we've been. Trading Clay Buchholz for Josh Tobias was the ultimate "going for it now" move. Mea culpa It was the ultimate "get under the luxury tax threshhold" move after they traded for Sale and learned how penalizing even in non-monetary terms it is to be over the luxury tax threshhold after the new CBA was signed. They just were not going to keep Buchholz as a 7th starter without a roster spot and weren't going to risk teams not being able to add $13.5 million to the payroll in spring training. Budgets are pretty much set this time of year. And besides, letting Buchholz try to get his career back on track is the right thing to do. It wasn't going to happen in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 16, 2017 17:05:16 GMT -5
My only comment would be if you trace back for the last say last couple decades or so most...not all...but most WS winners have a stud closer and most losers have a closer that imploded or a bullpen with no clear cut closer. Some see a closer as a thing any guy could do others see it as a stud closer means you win most games you're leading in the 9th No one is right no one is wrong In today's game with starters pitching less and less innings a good bullpen is very important. Just look at Royals, Cubs and Indians. Theo, the guy everyone thinks is best GM in game made what might turnout to be one of the worst trades based on WAR in history. Chapman is already gone and Torres looks like a beast. The thing is they won a Championship, so I bet you Theo has zero regret. Most people on this board base trades on a WAR vs WAR scale. Nothing wrong with that, but GM don't always look at it that way. They are happy to lose a trade if it gets them a Championship. That's what the Kimbrel trade was and that's why it's been so debated and will continue to be for years. Kimbrel wasn't the elite reliever we were hoping for, but if he can bounce back and help us win a Championship, DD will have no regrets on making that trade. Even if Margot becomes a good player.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 17, 2017 0:43:17 GMT -5
My post wasn't directed at anyone on particular. There was a lot of opinions about the future of the team. My main point was and is that there is only 40 guys that you can keep and at some point players that are a surplus need to be traded or lost for nothing ie jason Garcia, Ryan Presley and so on. Most if not all of the players DD has traded were traded were surplus aside from Espinosa and Kopech. At some point you need to decide whether to go for it or not. They're in a window so they're going for itMost of the posts in this thread were critical of DD's moves. My opinion is that this is what he does, management wanted to make a change in how things were being run and he's done that. So it's time to stop the whining about a guy doing things like he's always done and just enjoy the season. Just tired of the constant negativity of some Sox fans Why are the Red Sox "in a window"? They're hardly the KC Royals. I'd think the Red Sox would have a lot of chances to win over the next decade had they kept their blue chippers. Personally, I was glad they signed Price (well I would have preferred they had given Lester the contract the Cubs wound up giving him) but not having done so I wanted to the Sox to sign Price AND Cueto. My strong preference was to not surrender blue chip talent for starting pitching, but money, especially somebody not attached to a draft pick. I disagree with Soxjim using a 2 month portion of the Cueto's season when he wasn't exactly healthy and disregarding the huge body of work he had over his career and the larger sample size of interleague games. The Red Sox would have been over the luxury tax and it's a risky proposition to sign starters and the Sox would have doubled down on it, so I totally get the down side risk to it. But on the flip side Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, and Yoan Moncada would still likely be in the system today (unless Dombrowski found another name star to trade them for). The point is even with the expensive risk of Cueto and Price (or Lester had they simply signed him after trading him), the Red Sox, in time, as these pitchers age or break down or underperform, would have had three minimum wage prospects in Espinoza, Kopech, and Groome, ready to step in at some point during the end of the decade, and we're not talking three guys just to step in, but we're talking three extremely talented top rated prospects who would easily be the best pitching prospects the Sox have had since Clemens. I mean those are some serious arms. Moncada would have factored in somewhere whether it's 3b in 2017 and/or 2018 or elsewhere in the diamond afterwards. I don't think Margot would be best served as a #4 OF, which in Boston, is what he would have been, so while it can be seen as an overpay, given the Red Sox' situation, the deal for what Kimbrel was supposed to be would make sense. Unfortunately Kimbrel was pretty underwhelming last season. You can't keep all the prospects but guys like Dubon, Margot, and some of the other B type prospects could get you some pitching help (certainly not a Chris Sale). The Red Sox unique situation with OF, having it full with the B's, and with Moncada and Basabe still in the organization at the time (and Basabe could have been a potential CF down the road when JBJ walks or maybe trade bait with Moncada being an OF possibility by then), in my opinion made Margot expendable, especially for a needed top notch closer, which Kimbrel had a reasonably significant track record of being, despite his still young age and years of service left on his contract. But I think Dombrowski overshot things when he surrendered Espinoza for a guy with a limited track record and a questionable injury history in Pomeranz, and then decided to maximize today at the expense of tomorrow in a fair market trade for Chris Sale. I don't think he overpaid for Sale or got a steal for him. Sale is an excellent pitcher, but they did give up somebody with an amazing arm who could potentially be a #1 (the flip side is he could wind up in the pen as a closer.) The risk is if he gets hurt, you don't a ton of value out of Sale, but if Kopech gets hurt the ChiSox still have the value of Moncada and perhaps see Basabe develop. Basically the Red Sox put their eggs in the Chris Sale basket at the expense of tremendous value for the future. Which means win over the next few years with guns blazing, but after those three years are up, the Sox will still have some talented young players, but they won't have the talents of Espinoza and Kopech, nor Moncada, and I think those are huge losses for the organization and they'll be hard pressed to replace those talents come 2020, and with a middling farm system help won't be necessarily available to step in. Meanwhile, with the Sox expected to be in contention, I do expect more of these deals if somebody gets hurt and the Sox need help. They are committed to the next three years regardless of what happens afterwards. It can work, but I would have preferred to see a more balanced approach.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 17, 2017 6:31:22 GMT -5
Wouldn't anyone say that the blow up in dollars for the relief market just this past year makes the Kimbrel trade look at least a little less terrible?
I mean losing Margot was the killer and Kimbrel has yet to put up numbers like in his Braves days for 2 years now (including in San Diego). The problem with Kimbrel is that he didn't have any value dollar wise either.
I don't think the trade would of looked so bad if either Margot wasn't in the package OR the Sox actually traded for Ken Giles before he was traded to Houston. That's a guy that could actually improve as the years go on as a closer (4-5 years maybe) and came cheap with more control than Kimbrel (4 years).
I just think the Sox targeted the wrong guy (just like with the Pomeranz deal), probably because of Frank Wren and his dull opinion. He probably wanted Dombrowski to trade anything to get Kimbrel because he remembers him as a dominant Brave.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 17, 2017 6:40:44 GMT -5
Also, trading Basabe made a lot of sense.
The Sox would of had to carry him on the 40 man roster starting next offseason because he's subject to the rule 5 draft next offseason. A bad team could probably afford to carry him as a 4th outfielder. So the Sox could of run the risk of losing him if he had a great year this year in the minors this year for the Sox. They couldn't afford waste a 40 man roster spot on him next offseason.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 17, 2017 21:01:55 GMT -5
Also, trading Basabe made a lot of sense. The Sox would of had to carry him on the 40 man roster starting next offseason because he's subject to the rule 5 draft next offseason. A bad team could probably afford to carry him as a 4th outfielder. So the Sox could of run the risk of losing him if he had a great year this year in the minors this year for the Sox. They couldn't afford waste a 40 man roster spot on him next offseason. I don't think Basabe was a likely rule-5. He'd have just completed high-A. Teams will do that with relievers sometimes, especially high-velo guys who maybe have command issues (Garcia), but an A-ball hitter is really risky taking up a roster spot as probably a fifth rather than fourth outfielder. Not saying it wasn't possible, just pretty unlikely unless he'd had a huge A-ball season, in which case the Sox probably put him on their own 40-man.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 18, 2017 8:11:55 GMT -5
Also, trading Basabe made a lot of sense. The Sox would of had to carry him on the 40 man roster starting next offseason because he's subject to the rule 5 draft next offseason. A bad team could probably afford to carry him as a 4th outfielder. So the Sox could of run the risk of losing him if he had a great year this year in the minors this year for the Sox. They couldn't afford waste a 40 man roster spot on him next offseason. I don't think Basabe was a likely rule-5. He'd have just completed high-A. Teams will do that with relievers sometimes, especially high-velo guys who maybe have command issues (Garcia), but an A-ball hitter is really risky taking up a roster spot as probably a fifth rather than fourth outfielder. Not saying it wasn't possible, just pretty unlikely unless he'd had a huge A-ball season, in which case the Sox probably put him on their own 40-man. He could reach AA by the end of this year, which meant he was close enough for a team to take a chance on to protect on a roster for a year. The Padres are a perfect example of a bad team that could do this. I doubt the Sox would have enough room on the 40 man to protect Basabe for 2-3 years. That's a long time to hold onto a player while trying to contend. You need that room for waivers, for injuries during the year, and to call up a prospect that's performing in the minors and is a lot closer to the big leagues (Sam Travis for example).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2017 8:35:10 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything close to a 40 man roster crunch in the next few years that forces them to trade prospects. They're already mostly gone.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 18, 2017 13:15:57 GMT -5
What I find laughable is the use of spot interleague games as a comparable vs a succession of games. Somehow a spot few games in 2008 and 2009 and 2010 is supposed to count similarly to a stretch of successive games in 2015 in which a decision needs to be made to sign him in 2016? That's laughable. It's the entire basis of statistical sampling! Successive games are going to be more susceptible to intervening variables. That's the whole point. Successive games will drive you close to the mean. It will tell you a better story rather than a couple of spot games. Then wait one year-- a couple of more spot games - then wait another year etc.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 18, 2017 13:27:07 GMT -5
I thought the Sox made too quick of moves but overall once we got Sale I think it solidifies we're a threat - though moving Clay and getting nothing for him or not getting another starter is a potential blunder. Getting that starter imo is more important than Moreland or Thorny etc. Maybe they gambled on Owens and others because ERod and Pomz- they can't pitch a full season, can they? There's no way that they were keeping Buchholz after they got Sale. He didn't even have a roster spot as a $13.5 million 7th starter. Kendrick has quietly put up 18 innings allowing 12 hits, 3 runs, 3 walks and 16 strike outs and looks a great option for 7th starter that they can keep in the minors until he's needed. Yes Clay did.
There is NO WAY you can count on ERod and Pomz to pitch a full season then have them primed for the playoffs. This team is not built "just to be happy to be in the playoffs." You start ERod in the minors and go with starters Sale, Porcello, Price, Wright and Clay.
Now you have a lefty in the bullpen with Pomz preserving his innings while you have ERrod in the minors preserving his innings while you have a decent-quality Clay -- he is better than Kendrick - so more quality from your starting 5 but having 5 decent to pretty good starters at the bottom is not bad. Sure you get a tradeoff not having Erod but if he is real good then we have him somewhat strong for the stretch run and in the playoffs.
No w if Price is hurt for a delayed time we have have Pomz and Erod ready. All the while we wait for a team to suffer some injuries or poor performance early and then maybe over-pay for someone like Clay as we get healthier.
IMO there shouldn't be as much concern about "the 7th starter" but having good quality starters and getting value if you trade one of them."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 18, 2017 14:13:33 GMT -5
It's the entire basis of statistical sampling! Successive games are going to be more susceptible to intervening variables. That's the whole point. Successive games will drive you close to the mean. It will tell you a better story rather than a couple of spot games. Then wait one year-- a couple of more spot games - then wait another year etc. This is actually the **polar opposite** of reality. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, "The thing about facts is that they're true whether you believe them or not." You don't get to make up how statistics work to support your argument. You might as well start reimagining other fields of mathematics. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact, and you're quadrupling down on your misunderstanding of Statistics (the field) to forward your use of statistical data in an erroneous argument. This is very basic, but it should help you understand sampling bias a little better: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias. What you're doing is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect: you don't understand enough about the field of statistical analysis to recognize your own misunderstanding of statistical analysis. Numerous people have tried explaining it to you, but you'll only "get" it if you choose to do the work yourself. This isn't personal; it will improve your ability to articulate and reasonably debate your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 18, 2017 14:22:28 GMT -5
There's no way that they were keeping Buchholz after they got Sale. He didn't even have a roster spot as a $13.5 million 7th starter. Kendrick has quietly put up 18 innings allowing 12 hits, 3 runs, 3 walks and 16 strike outs and looks a great option for 7th starter that they can keep in the minors until he's needed. Yes Clay did.
There is NO WAY you can count on ERod and Pomz to pitch a full season then have them primed for the playoffs. This team is not built "just to be happy to be in the playoffs." You start ERod in the minors and go with starters Sale, Porcello, Price, Wright and Clay.
Now you have a lefty in the bullpen with Pomz preserving his innings while you have ERrod in the minors preserving his innings while you have a decent-quality Clay -- he is better than Kendrick - so more quality from your starting 5 but having 5 decent to pretty good starters at the bottom is not bad. Sure you get a tradeoff not having Erod but if he is real good then we have him somewhat strong for the stretch run and in the playoffs.
No w if Price is hurt for a delayed time we have have Pomz and Erod ready. All the while we wait for a team to suffer some injuries or poor performance early and then maybe over-pay for someone like Clay as we get healthier.
IMO there shouldn't be as much concern about "the 7th starter" but having good quality starters and getting value if you trade one of them." A team trying to contend isn't going to put two pitchers they think are better than Buchholz in the minors just so he can pitch. I didn't like the trade because they got basically nothing back (Tobias could be a terrific guy, but he's not a prospect of any note), but Buchholz didn't have a roster spot. Your proposal absolutely has some theoretical merit, but it's not how teams are run. They're not going to give two guys that they think are important to the team's success a "no confidence" vote and a trip to Pawtucket, nor assume that neither can pitch a full season.
|
|
|