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.
Red Sox trade Clay Buchholz to Phillies for 2B Josh Tobias
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Dec 20, 2016 14:12:17 GMT -5
After the hatchet job done to this farm system that is either among the worst in Baseball or the worst this guy is probably in the top 10 top 15 with our prospects. Ends justify the means. Clay needed to go and they couldn't risk him going to the Yankees as a FA. Not the best return clearly but just a reminder on how bad this farm system truly is.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Dec 20, 2016 14:15:02 GMT -5
I saw Tobias at the tail-end of the FSL season for Clearwater. idn't really notice much. He could just be a body to be used in a future swap. Was RAJ consulted by DD? ?? It's highly unlikely that Amaro knew much about a college senior picked in the 10th round in his last draft with the Phillies that the Red Sox pro scouts didn't know. Yeah, but if anyone knows how to pull off a bizarre trade with little to show for it, it's Amaro.
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 87
|
Post by brisox on Dec 20, 2016 14:16:04 GMT -5
That's what I have 180.9M, with 14.1m total to play with against the Tax which got raised to 195 this year, Penalty gets calculated at year end so we will want to keep 5-7M for mid season moves call ups and buffer, I see us with about 7M to play with, given conservative assumptions on arbitration amounts . Even if the next move is Pomeranz for prospects it only gets us to 12.7M in play room. no EE for that price. I personally think we are done and this is the team in ST .
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 20, 2016 14:23:23 GMT -5
According to www.baseball-reference.com, Tobias is listed as a"second baseman and designated hitter". So the plan all along was to have him replace Papi in the lineup. The bottom line is that Philly swallowed all of the 13.5 million, thus giving luxury tax relief to the team. I have no doubt DD tried to pick up a better prospect, but those interested teams most likely wanted him to kick in some salary.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 20, 2016 14:26:31 GMT -5
All of these laments that we should have kept Clay longer to get a better return ignore the fact that the big "return" is the salary relief. If you wait until Spring you might find a better deal, but you also might not find a team willing to take on his whole salary, and if we have to throw in, say $5m, that's $5M less we can spend in '17 on an acquisition, while staying under than cap enough to splurge next year if we want to, after resetting the "years over the cap" number back to zero. More generally, will there ever be a transaction for which multiple people don't insist that "we" (meaning "I") could have done better? This becoming as predictable as the dawn. How do you propose we evaluate a transaction without comparing it to what we think should have been available?
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Dec 20, 2016 14:34:27 GMT -5
At the end of the day I just don't think Buch had the value most( me included) thought he had. If he did I would think he would have ended up on a contender not as a buy low option from a bad team who is probably hoping he catches lighting in a bottle again so they can trade him come July.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Dec 20, 2016 14:35:00 GMT -5
All of these laments that we should have kept Clay longer to get a better return ignore the fact that the big "return" is the salary relief. If you wait until Spring you might find a better deal, but you also might not find a team willing to take on his whole salary, and if we have to throw in, say $5m, that's $5M less we can spend in '17 on an acquisition, while staying under than cap enough to splurge next year if we want to, after resetting the "years over the cap" number back to zero. More generally, will there ever be a transaction for which multiple people don't insist that "we" (meaning "I") could have done better? This becoming as predictable as the dawn. How do you propose we evaluate a transaction without comparing it to what we think should have been available? How do you know what is available? Do you think you know the market better than the GM does?
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 20, 2016 14:47:01 GMT -5
Phils DFAed Richie Shaffer, 3B. 2012 first rounder. Pick him up and DFA Brentz. The 40 man roster is at 39 now, so we wouldn't have to DFA Brentz.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 20, 2016 14:51:24 GMT -5
How do you propose we evaluate a transaction without comparing it to what we think should have been available? How do you know what is available? Do you think you know the market better than the GM does? We can evaluate what we think the market should be based on historical comparable transactions, analyzing other team's rosters and needs, applying basic economic theory, etc. The alternative is, what, assuming your GM is omnipotent and only makes the best possible deals? This is a discussion forum; therefore, we discuss transactions. I'm not saying that he could have gotten more for Buchholz now. I'm saying that I would have waited to see if I could have gotten more for him later, even if that comes at the risk of not being able to completely unload his salary later on. In a market in which Edinson Volquez gets 2/$22M, Andrew Cashner gets 1/$10M and Jeremy Hellickson is offered a $17.2M qualifying offer, Clay Buchholz at $13.5M should have some positive value. If no one is offering positive value for him now, I think the right move is to wait and see if that changes. This is a move you make in February, not one you make in December. By the way, the trend we see in a lot of Dombrowski transactions is a lack of desire to maximize return and instead an emphasis on certainty. As soon as negotiations reach the point where he thinks they're better off moving forward, he pulls the trigger instead of seeing if he can squeeze a little more value from the deal. That's both good (you don't risk losing the deal over haggling over the third piece) and bad (third pieces sometimes turn out to be quite important).
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 87
|
Post by brisox on Dec 20, 2016 14:52:08 GMT -5
All of these laments that we should have kept Clay longer to get a better return ignore the fact that the big "return" is the salary relief. If you wait until Spring you might find a better deal, but you also might not find a team willing to take on his whole salary, and if we have to throw in, say $5m, that's $5M less we can spend in '17 on an acquisition, while staying under than cap enough to splurge next year if we want to, after resetting the "years over the cap" number back to zero. More generally, will there ever be a transaction for which multiple people don't insist that "we" (meaning "I") could have done better? This becoming as predictable as the dawn. How do you propose we evaluate a transaction without comparing it to what we think should have been available? He was a 7th option Spot Starter , (possible 7th inning or long relief guy),that we are paying 13.5 Million ? We are lucky we got a bag of balls for him much less a decent hitting 24yr old and full salary relief. of all the deals DD has done,this is by far the least annoying.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Dec 20, 2016 14:57:43 GMT -5
He was a 7th option Spot Starter , (possible 7th inning or long relief guy) For us. Could potentially* have been a 4-6 option on a team with a less ridiculous rotation. *Or not, if this is what his market value turned out to be worth.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 20, 2016 15:01:49 GMT -5
How do you propose we evaluate a transaction without comparing it to what we think should have been available? He was a 7th option Spot Starter , (possible 7th inning or long relief guy),that we are paying 13.5 Million ? We are lucky we got a bag of balls for him much less a decent hitting 24yr old and full salary relief. of all the deals DD has done,this is by far the least annoying. A player's value shouldn't be determined by his role on your roster, it's determined by his role on other teams' rosters. Buchholz comes with a lot of risk, but also a lot of upside, and this is a historically weak free agent market. Taking into account his contract, he doesn't have a ton of value, but he has more value than 24-year-old in high-A who won't crack the top 30 organizational prospects. It's not a terrible trade, because I only think they could have done a little better (think a low-minor flier). But it's one I would have waited on.
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 87
|
Post by brisox on Dec 20, 2016 15:15:48 GMT -5
He was a 7th option Spot Starter , (possible 7th inning or long relief guy),that we are paying 13.5 Million ? We are lucky we got a bag of balls for him much less a decent hitting 24yr old and full salary relief. of all the deals DD has done,this is by far the least annoying. A player's value shouldn't be determined by his role on your roster, it's determined by his role on other teams' rosters. Buchholz comes with a lot of risk, but also a lot of upside, and this is a historically weak free agent market. Taking into account his contract, he doesn't have a ton of value, but he has more value than 24-year-old in high-A who won't crack the top 30 organizational prospects. It's not a terrible trade, because I only think they could have done a little better (think a low-minor flier). But it's one I would have waited on. I think there are two values, the value he provides to us on this team, as currently structured has to be considered. Does it make sense to be paying 13.5 Million for a player in that role, of course not , as for his value to other teams. He is a story of endless risk and ups and downs. Other GMs are as sick of hearing about his "Stuff" as we are. The Clay conversations have not just started, efforts were made all last year to find something and it extended into this year and through the winter, even before Sale . Waiting another 2 months wasn't going to change that. IMO. For the purpose of what this teams needs today, it was more valuable not to pay a likely relief piece a salary at that rate , than it was to get a haul in return. It also positions us to ask for more for Pomeranz/Rodriguez as we have no pressure to move them and they are really the best options we have to get anything decent with an eye toward restocking the farm.
|
|
|
Post by dabigmo on Dec 20, 2016 15:17:38 GMT -5
Dave Dombrowski is bad at his job. He buys high and sells low, he has no patience, he is beginning to resemble Rick Pitino as a GM that way. I will continue to posit the theory that Dave Dombrowski is the worst signing the Red Sox have ever made. All that said, F Buchholz! If he pitched like the #2/3 he was supposed to be, then Dombrowski doesn't give away Espinoza for a Pomeranz, who is destined to be our future left handed setup man. This feels like an F-you to Buchholz by picking up his option, chances are he could have gotten a 3-4 year deal at roughly the same AAS, chosen where to pitch and something tells me Philly wouldn't have been high on his wish list. Now the talking heads on the radio will need a new whipping boy
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 20, 2016 15:20:33 GMT -5
A player's value shouldn't be determined by his role on your roster, it's determined by his role on other teams' rosters. Buchholz comes with a lot of risk, but also a lot of upside, and this is a historically weak free agent market. Taking into account his contract, he doesn't have a ton of value, but he has more value than 24-year-old in high-A who won't crack the top 30 organizational prospects. It's not a terrible trade, because I only think they could have done a little better (think a low-minor flier). But it's one I would have waited on. I think there are two values, the value he provides to us on this team, as currently structured has to be considered. Does it make sense to be paying 13.5 Million for a player in that role, of course not , as for his value to other teams. He is a story of endless risk and ups and downs. Other GMs are as sick of hearing about his "Stuff" as we are. The Clay conversations have not just started, efforts were made all last year to find something and it extended into this year and through the winter, even before Sale . Waiting another 2 months wasn't going to change that. IMO. For the purpose of what this teams needs today, it was more valuable not to pay a likely relief piece a salary at that rate , than it was to get a haul in return. It also positions us to ask for more for Pomeranz/Rodriguez as we have no pressure to move them and they are really the best options we have to get anything decent with an eye toward restocking the farm. I don't think it's a bad trade because they should have kept Buchholz. I think it's a bad trade because they should have waited out the market at least a little longer and gotten slightly more in return for him. I think this deal would still have been there in two months, and there is a chance another team strikes out on their preferred options and talks themselves into Buchholz.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 20, 2016 15:20:59 GMT -5
I can't wait for your continual banging of this drum
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 87
|
Post by brisox on Dec 20, 2016 15:27:00 GMT -5
Phils DFAed Richie Shaffer, 3B. 2012 first rounder. Pick him up and DFA Brentz. The 40 man roster is at 39 now, so we wouldn't have to DFA Brentz. We just Signed Matt Dominguez and extended him an invite to ST . He would have nowhere to play.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 20, 2016 15:30:29 GMT -5
I remember Tobias from a vid from his high school days. I remembered him, because at the time I thought he was one of the more nonathletic players I had seen in a long time yet he was still regarded as a prospect.
For your viewing pleasure:
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 20, 2016 15:35:32 GMT -5
All of these laments that we should have kept Clay longer to get a better return ignore the fact that the big "return" is the salary relief. If you wait until Spring you might find a better deal, but you also might not find a team willing to take on his whole salary, and if we have to throw in, say $5m, that's $5M less we can spend in '17 on an acquisition, while staying under than cap enough to splurge next year if we want to, after resetting the "years over the cap" number back to zero. More generally, will there ever be a transaction for which multiple people don't insist that "we" (meaning "I") could have done better? This becoming as predictable as the dawn. Not much coming off the rolls after this season and all of it likely fairly replaceable (Moreland, Young, relievers on 1 year deals), so, unless they somehow trade Panda and someone takes most or all of his salary, or trade Hanley, which seems unlikely, any "splurge" takes them back over the tax. True, once they get below it there's a reset and this provides a bit of a benefit, but if they are looking to splurge, there are slim pickings in 2017 - unless we're talking extensions or a trade of assets for a player of need with a significant salary. As for free agent splurging, 2018 (Machado, Harper, Kershaw) is the time to do it. But again, short of a Panda or Hanley trade, the only significant salary you lose that year is Price, and that's only if he opts out.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Dec 20, 2016 15:37:11 GMT -5
How do you know what is available? Do you think you know the market better than the GM does? We can evaluate what we think the market should be based on historical comparable transactions, analyzing other team's rosters and needs, applying basic economic theory, etc. The alternative is, what, assuming your GM is omnipotent and only makes the best possible deals? This is a discussion forum; therefore, we discuss transactions. I'm not saying that he could have gotten more for Buchholz now. I'm saying that I would have waited to see if I could have gotten more for him later, even if that comes at the risk of not being able to completely unload his salary later on. In a market in which Edinson Volquez gets 2/$22M, Andrew Cashner gets 1/$10M and Jeremy Hellickson is offered a $17.2M qualifying offer, Clay Buchholz at $13.5M should have some positive value. If no one is offering positive value for him now, I think the right move is to wait and see if that changes. This is a move you make in February, not one you make in December. By the way, the trend we see in a lot of Dombrowski transactions is a lack of desire to maximize return and instead an emphasis on certainty. As soon as negotiations reach the point where he thinks they're better off moving forward, he pulls the trigger instead of seeing if he can squeeze a little more value from the deal. That's both good (you don't risk losing the deal over haggling over the third piece) and bad (third pieces sometimes turn out to be quite important). There are not easy historical comparisions for pitcher's like Clay Buchhbolz, most particularly. Any team that would have decided to take him on would have had to probably write new algorithms to determine value. That is part of the point. It is one that is getting lost of "discussion" going on around here lately. If you read through the first pages of this thread, there is no mention of just how bad he was early last season and how inconsistant he has been throughout the years. Just because he is cheaper than most starting pitching, doesn't mean he has any inherent value at all. As a matter of fact, until there is injury or underperformance, he has almost no value to any contender at this moment in time. That is why the Phillies, who are not expected to contend, ended up buying him. It is more reasonable to derive what market value a player has, because of the actual value the team got for him on the day they traded him. Again, holding onto assets doesn't mean you are going to get better value. Your last paragraph is very good and adds to the discussion. But what has happened here lately, is that posters are convinced he is judging the markets badly, in spite of the fact that he is not only attempting to get market value for the transactions, but by definition, is determining the market value with the transactions. I think it is time people should try and understand that, and it appears I am not the only one.
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 87
|
Post by brisox on Dec 20, 2016 15:39:00 GMT -5
I think there are two values, the value he provides to us on this team, as currently structured has to be considered. Does it make sense to be paying 13.5 Million for a player in that role, of course not , as for his value to other teams. He is a story of endless risk and ups and downs. Other GMs are as sick of hearing about his "Stuff" as we are. The Clay conversations have not just started, efforts were made all last year to find something and it extended into this year and through the winter, even before Sale . Waiting another 2 months wasn't going to change that. IMO. For the purpose of what this teams needs today, it was more valuable not to pay a likely relief piece a salary at that rate , than it was to get a haul in return. It also positions us to ask for more for Pomeranz/Rodriguez as we have no pressure to move them and they are really the best options we have to get anything decent with an eye toward restocking the farm. I don't think it's a bad trade because they should have kept Buchholz. I think it's a bad trade because they should have waited out the market at least a little longer and gotten slightly more in return for him. I think this deal would still have been there in two months, and there is a chance another team strikes out on their preferred options and talks themselves into Buchholz. I hear what you are saying but based on what do you think a better deal would have been out there ? there is no team that can possibly value Clay at more than a 5-7 m arm ,for them to be willing to give up anything decent for him, they would ask us to eat half at least. We did not want to do that for the last 2 years as if we have to pay half anyway we might as well keep him. . There was zero interest at the meetings , how does he go from no takers to an array of options in 2 months? And what difference in prospect level is worth 6 Million? top 10 , top 5 based on the farm? I think the FO did the best they could . We agree it was the right move, I think we just disagree on the waiting being a good idea. The deal being there in 2 month was not a guarantee with a team willing to take on all the $. Acting now IMO was the only option.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 20, 2016 15:40:46 GMT -5
As usual, this particular trade can be justified in isolation ... Buchholz really isn't all that valuable a chip, is unreliable, the salary relief is a reasonable consideration, etc, etc.
But, when looked at in overall context, it starts to break down. Since this is a direct comparison, would you rather have Buchholz and Espinoza, or Pomeranz and Tobias? I realize that wasn't the trade, of course, but that's the effect of Dombrowski's moves when you boil it down. He jumps from trade to trade, trying to use whatever assets he can to upgrade the major league roster at that particular moment. Which, you know, isn't the worst thing, doesn't make him the devil. But I do think it almost inevitably weakens the team over the long haul.
He should look south to Foxboro. Belichick knows that luck plays a big enough role in the playoffs that you should shoot for 12 wins every year instead of 16 in any particular year. Because, even when you win 16, someone can always catch a pass on his own helmet and screw everything up for you.
|
|
|
Post by daltonjones on Dec 20, 2016 16:05:43 GMT -5
Maybe Dombrowski thinks that the Red Sox have to pay a "cooties tax" of a low 20's prospect whenever they make a trade. Or, while it is good that he does not succumb to the sunk-cost fallacy, he seems to think that future cost is a fallacy too.
After 04, and certainly after 07, what I wanted was a dynasty. After 88, 90, and 16 I place little value on making it to the playoffs with realistic hopes of winning a game or two; though I realize I am in a very small minority on this.
The prospect of a dynasty seemed reachable for a couple years, at least until it became clear that Pawtucket was a place pitching prospects went to find their floors.
Certainly that gonfalons bubble is long gone now.
Winning is nice, certainly, but the team is so corporate, so vanilla, now that I have little enthusiasm for next year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 20, 2016 16:07:48 GMT -5
If this was Clay's trade value, I totally don't get why we bothered to pick up his option. They may have expected the luxury tax threshold to go higher than it did and then they could have kept him or paid a bunch of his salary to get better prospects. Clearly, the goal is to get under the LTT over all else. The longer they waited, the more likely that teams would not have the budget to add $13.5 million.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 20, 2016 16:14:12 GMT -5
I do hope Clay has a few more good years. Unfortunately I see a lot of Tim Lincecum in him. Tim is 32 and is out of baseball. Similar body frame/stuff/upside. Timmy had a huge 3 or 4 year peak & then fell off a cliff.
|
|
|