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 chud on Dec 22, 2016 19:11:22 GMT -5
I'm sure it's been said a few times but in summary here's my take:
1) Buch's option had to be picked up as he, at the time, was the 6th starter and a potential bullpen weapon...
2) Once Sale was acquired, Buch was the guy to go due to price tag and to years of control...for obvious reasons...
3) Could the Sox have gotten more for Buch, maybe, but not without a lot of if's...if, he proved himself in the rotation and was able to get that chance...if he proved himself in the bullpen, when he wasn't in the rotation...if he stayed healthy doing either...and then, would still be getting paid a lot of cash for that potential...
4) Sox got that salary off the books avoiding any of those potential if's, at a time when avoiding the luxury tax in the new CBA is important over multiple years...and if the Phil's get more for him at the trading deadline so bit it...as only a team out of contention from the get go could give Buch the time in the rotation to see if he has more value in him than 6th/7th starter status at $13m per year he would have been w/ the AL front running Sox...thank goodness we're not in the Phils boat...
5) It's clear that the Sox shopped him (judging by what they reportedly asked for from Miami), and found nothing huge...and would bet a lot of money they explored a lot of options between paying all of his salary (and the prospect they would get for that) all the way to what they would get for some team picking up the entire freight...and would guess from the outcome, all of the options led them to shedding the entire salary being the best option, and assuming there were only a few (if that) teams willing to take on his entire salary...IMO
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 23, 2016 12:09:21 GMT -5
I'm sure it's been said a few times but in summary here's my take: 1) Buch's option had to be picked up as he, at the time, was the 6th starter and a potential bullpen weapon... 2) Once Sale was acquired, Buch was the guy to go due to price tag and to years of control...for obvious reasons... 3) Could the Sox have gotten more for Buch, maybe, but not without a lot of if's...if, he proved himself in the rotation and was able to get that chance...if he proved himself in the bullpen, when he wasn't in the rotation...if he stayed healthy doing either...and then, would still be getting paid a lot of cash for that potential... 4) Sox got that salary off the books avoiding any of those potential if's, at a time when avoiding the luxury tax in the new CBA is important over multiple years...and if the Phil's get more for him at the trading deadline so bit it...as only a team out of contention from the get go could give Buch the time in the rotation to see if he has more value in him than 6th/7th starter status at $13m per year he would have been w/ the AL front running Sox...thank goodness we're not in the Phils boat... 5) It's clear that the Sox shopped him (judging by what they reportedly asked for from Miami), and found nothing huge...and would bet a lot of money they explored a lot of options between paying all of his salary (and the prospect they would get for that) all the way to what they would get for some team picking up the entire freight...and would guess from the outcome, all of the options led them to shedding the entire salary being the best option, and assuming there were only a few (if that) teams willing to take on his entire salary...IMO Agree with everything you said. I do think there were probably only a handful of teams that could/would eat the whole salary. When DD had the feel that he would be running that risk of having to eat salary, he made this move. Too many risks in keeping him till ST.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 23, 2016 16:19:56 GMT -5
Just like Jantzen Witte. Tobias will be 24 and 5 months, starting the season in high-A. Again, "good bat" is a relative term here. www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post/_/id/6086/rotation-overstock-bumps-buchholz-out-of-bostonWitte is an organizational player, a guy that's not seen as a prospect, he's not even in our top 60. While Tobias is a fringy prospect, he's a prospect with a chance to play in majors as a bench guy or an up and down guy. Law also thinks he moves to third long term. I was talking about hit tools. Yes, Tobias is a marginally better "prospect." He wasn't top-30 in a middling Phillies system, and he's probably 30-40 in a high-teens Sox system. That's still essentially nothing of a return. When a guy is a "if things break right he should be replacement level or a hair above," that's not a guy anyone should be talking about building value in and then using as a trade chip.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 23, 2016 17:03:18 GMT -5
The Red Sox didn’t score gold in Tobias, but Buchholz has seemed to have fallen out of favor in Boston. To get him and his salary off the books for a player with a bat-first second base profile isn’t a bad haul. Now freshly 24 years old, it wouldn't be surprising to see a quick start in Salem before he is sent off to Portland in Double-A. He may never be Jose Altuve, but some fine tuning, especially in the field, he could be a serviceable role player down the road. At the very least, he isn't $13.5-million.www.minorleagueball.com/2016/12/21/14036862/the-boston-red-sox-get-josh-tobias-from-philliesJust wow.
A post like this makes one think we got a Double A player destined to be a role player is as good as a decent MLB starter. I guess that's what you get when you have a minor league website evaluating the trade and referring to Tobias as "not a bad haul."
Clay pitched game 3 of the playoffs. He is one year removed from a 2.7/3.2 WAR. And it's laughable to refer to Tobias and "haul" in the same paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by tookme55 on Dec 23, 2016 19:56:10 GMT -5
With 7 starting pitchers, I would have given up Clay for NOTHING in return. We got a $13.5M gift. Which by the way pays for the three players we acquired, Sale,Thornburg and Moreland.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 24, 2016 0:12:04 GMT -5
I was talking about hit tools. Yes, Tobias is a marginally better "prospect." He wasn't top-30 in a middling Phillies system, and he's probably 30-40 in a high-teens Sox system. That's still essentially nothing of a return. When a guy is a "if things break right he should be replacement level or a hair above," that's not a guy anyone should be talking about building value in and then using as a trade chip. I just don't agree. He was called one of the top College Seniors in draft. Came from a top College program. So far in minors he's hit for average and has good on base skills. He should move through system quickly. Can see him in Portland half way through next season. Guys can improve defence, Travis Shaw proved that. His biggest knock is his age. When I look at Garcia trade I like our return better. Look at us flipping Wilkerson last year, he can can build up trade value.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 24, 2016 0:23:01 GMT -5
The Red Sox didn’t score gold in Tobias, but Buchholz has seemed to have fallen out of favor in Boston. To get him and his salary off the books for a player with a bat-first second base profile isn’t a bad haul. Now freshly 24 years old, it wouldn't be surprising to see a quick start in Salem before he is sent off to Portland in Double-A. He may never be Jose Altuve, but some fine tuning, especially in the field, he could be a serviceable role player down the road. At the very least, he isn't $13.5-million.www.minorleagueball.com/2016/12/21/14036862/the-boston-red-sox-get-josh-tobias-from-philliesJust wow.
A post like this makes one think we got a Double A player destined to be a role player is as good as a decent MLB starter. I guess that's what you get when you have a minor league website evaluating the trade and referring to Tobias as "not a bad haul."
Clay pitched game 3 of the playoffs. He is one year removed from a 2.7/3.2 WAR. And it's laughable to refer to Tobias and "haul" in the same paragraph.
It's all about salary. Teams obviously thought 13.5 million was way to much for Clay to have real value. If DD was willing to pay a bunch of money we would have got more. DD wanted salary relief. Also Buchholz is one of the most frustrating pitchers I've ever seen. Teams don't like uncertainty and with Buchholz you have no clue what your going to get. I just don't understand how when he's healthy he can pitch like one of the worst pitchers in league for 2/3 of a season then pitch like a good #3 for a 1/3 season.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 24, 2016 3:02:37 GMT -5
Just wow.
A post like this makes one think we got a Double A player destined to be a role player is as good as a decent MLB starter. I guess that's what you get when you have a minor league website evaluating the trade and referring to Tobias as "not a bad haul."
Clay pitched game 3 of the playoffs. He is one year removed from a 2.7/3.2 WAR. And it's laughable to refer to Tobias and "haul" in the same paragraph.
It's all about salary. Teams obviously thought 13.5 million was way to much for Clay to have real value. If DD was willing to pay a bunch of money we would have got more. DD wanted salary relief. Also Buchholz is one of the most frustrating pitchers I've ever seen. Teams don't like uncertainty and with Buchholz you have no clue what your going to get. I just don't understand how when he's healthy he can pitch like one of the worst pitchers in league for 2/3 of a season then pitch like a good #3 for a 1/3 season. But we were under the cap, right? If we were, why react like we're Tamp Bay? While Clay was frustrating he does have imo for 2017 a higher floor than the others. Or at least insurance because the other 3 either are unproven to an extent or have innings issues which Clay could have helped out with. Anyhow, while Clay is frustrating, then what is Tobias? Anyhow the article referring in the same para of Tobias "and a haul" just made me crack up a bit. I felt it was very bias and using that terminology to identify Tobias as a "haul" -- it forced a "wow" out of me.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 24, 2016 8:29:23 GMT -5
Doesn't this trade really come down to 3 factors more than anything else?
1. Do they stay under the tax line and would having the salary allowed them to still do that?
2. Was ultimately not having Clay a factor that held this team back?
3. Perhaps most importantly, assuming they stay under, does resetting the tax make them aggressive in future year when they will likely need to be tax payers to keep their players?
If I'm watching them let certain guys walk who would be worth the contracts simply because they are worried about the tax again then I'll have an issue with that.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 24, 2016 9:02:02 GMT -5
It's all about salary. Teams obviously thought 13.5 million was way to much for Clay to have real value. If DD was willing to pay a bunch of money we would have got more. DD wanted salary relief. Also Buchholz is one of the most frustrating pitchers I've ever seen. Teams don't like uncertainty and with Buchholz you have no clue what your going to get. I just don't understand how when he's healthy he can pitch like one of the worst pitchers in league for 2/3 of a season then pitch like a good #3 for a 1/3 season. But we were under the cap, right? If we were, why react like we're Tamp Bay? While Clay was frustrating he does have imo for 2017 a higher floor than the others. Or at least insurance because the other 3 either are unproven to an extent or have innings issues which Clay could have helped out with. Anyhow, while Clay is frustrating, then what is Tobias? Anyhow the article referring in the same para of Tobias "and a haul" just made me crack up a bit. I felt it was very bias and using that terminology to identify Tobias as a "haul" -- it forced a "wow" out of me.
No. The Sox were over the cap with Buchholz. Dumping his salary allows the Red Sox to be well under (about $10 million) and well positioned to fill a need with a big salary come the July 31st trade deadline. The Sox felt that was more valuable than paying a #7 unreliable starter/long reliever $13.5 million. Can't say I blame them for thinking that. As far as Tobias goes, yes, he's fringy and I wouldn't consider him a "haul". I'd say that dumping Buchholz's salary allows the Sox to pay Sale's contract, which is a good tradeoff. The Red Sox want the flexibility to be able to spend midseason if need be and be free to reset the luxury tax rate for future seasons, which is a good idea considering the talent available (I'd go all in on Otani, moreso than the rich class of 2018-19)
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 24, 2016 12:22:30 GMT -5
It's all about salary. Teams obviously thought 13.5 million was way to much for Clay to have real value. If DD was willing to pay a bunch of money we would have got more. DD wanted salary relief. Also Buchholz is one of the most frustrating pitchers I've ever seen. Teams don't like uncertainty and with Buchholz you have no clue what your going to get. I just don't understand how when he's healthy he can pitch like one of the worst pitchers in league for 2/3 of a season then pitch like a good #3 for a 1/3 season. But we were under the cap, right? If we were, why react like we're Tamp Bay? While Clay was frustrating he does have imo for 2017 a higher floor than the others. Or at least insurance because the other 3 either are unproven to an extent or have innings issues which Clay could have helped out with. Anyhow, while Clay is frustrating, then what is Tobias? Anyhow the article referring in the same para of Tobias "and a haul" just made me crack up a bit. I felt it was very bias and using that terminology to identify Tobias as a "haul" -- it forced a "wow" out of me.
All reports say yes we were under tax level by a couple million. The thing is we need room for in season moves to add depth in case of injury. This trade allows that, while staying under luxury tax. I have no problem with the return of Tobias, but I wouldn't call him a haul. We could also add another player before season starts.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 24, 2016 12:24:34 GMT -5
But we were under the cap, right? If we were, why react like we're Tamp Bay? While Clay was frustrating he does have imo for 2017 a higher floor than the others. Or at least insurance because the other 3 either are unproven to an extent or have innings issues which Clay could have helped out with. Anyhow, while Clay is frustrating, then what is Tobias? Anyhow the article referring in the same para of Tobias "and a haul" just made me crack up a bit. I felt it was very bias and using that terminology to identify Tobias as a "haul" -- it forced a "wow" out of me.
No. The Sox were over the cap with Buchholz. Dumping his salary allows the Red Sox to be well under (about $10 million) and well positioned to fill a need with a big salary come the July 31st trade deadline. The Sox felt that was more valuable than paying a #7 unreliable starter/long reliever $13.5 million. Can't say I blame them for thinking that. As far as Tobias goes, yes, he's fringy and I wouldn't consider him a "haul". I'd say that dumping Buchholz's salary allows the Sox to pay Sale's contract, which is a good tradeoff. The Red Sox want the flexibility to be able to spend midseason if need be and be free to reset the luxury tax rate for future seasons, which is a good idea considering the talent available (I'd go all in on Otani, moreso than the rich class of 2018-19) I've seen 3-4 reports that Sox were under the Cap before Buchholz trade by a few million.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 24, 2016 12:49:06 GMT -5
No. The Sox were over the cap with Buchholz. Dumping his salary allows the Red Sox to be well under (about $10 million) and well positioned to fill a need with a big salary come the July 31st trade deadline. The Sox felt that was more valuable than paying a #7 unreliable starter/long reliever $13.5 million. Can't say I blame them for thinking that. As far as Tobias goes, yes, he's fringy and I wouldn't consider him a "haul". I'd say that dumping Buchholz's salary allows the Sox to pay Sale's contract, which is a good tradeoff. The Red Sox want the flexibility to be able to spend midseason if need be and be free to reset the luxury tax rate for future seasons, which is a good idea considering the talent available (I'd go all in on Otani, moreso than the rich class of 2018-19) I've seen 3-4 reports that Sox were under the Cap before Buchholz trade by a few million. This is the most accurate spreadsheet of salaries I've seen and it has the Red Sox with $6.34 million under the luxury tax threshold now after they traded Buchholz.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Dec 24, 2016 13:08:33 GMT -5
The Sox were likely over the cap. The problem with all the reports and spreadsheets is that no one really knows exactly how much the Sox spend on benefits and the rest of the 40 man roster throughout the year. If they underestimated those numbers then the Sox were under, if they overestimated then the Sox were over. Either way, it was really close.
By choosing to move Buchholz I think it should be clear that the Sox themselves thought they would be over and chose to move him for mostly just salary releif and the ability to have a little payroll flexibility for mid season moves. It's up to each person to decide whether that was worth it to them (I'm fine with it because I couldnt watch another season of Buchholz throwing to first 50 times an inning).
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,948
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 24, 2016 13:18:36 GMT -5
I've seen 3-4 reports that Sox were under the Cap before Buchholz trade by a few million. This is the most accurate spreadsheet of salaries I've seen and it has the Red Sox with $6.34 million under the luxury tax threshold now after they traded Buchholz. Can someone tell me what the difference is between that estimate and the one at Cot's (below) ? Both have about $13M in benefits included, but Cot's has us 15.4M under. What makes that other one better? docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mVYyinHlYUI0gE98AgFFb5tDFIoEatCfqEo2xDfv1NI/pubhtml
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 24, 2016 13:20:40 GMT -5
I've seen 3-4 reports that Sox were under the Cap before Buchholz trade by a few million. This is the most accurate spreadsheet of salaries I've seen and it has the Red Sox with $6.34 million under the luxury tax threshold now after they traded Buchholz. Here's Alex Speier's newsletter from the other day: Bundle those players together, add them to the players the Red Sox have and the $13.5 million for medical benefits that all 30 teams must pay, and it brings the Red Sox’ current projected commitments to approximately $192 million. That is $3 million under the $195 million luxury tax threshold – though it fails to leave any available room for in-season maneuvers (big league salaries for callups, in-season signings, trades, etc.). If the Red Sox want to have, say, $10 million for in-season moves while staying under the $195 million luxury tax threshold, then, they’d have to clear about $7 million from their payroll. In theory, the team could do that either by trading Buchholz ($13.5 million) or by dealing Pomeranz (projected arbitration figure of $4.7 million from MLBTradeRumors.com) and Fernando Abad (projected arbitration figure of $2 million). In other words, the Red Sox retain some flexibility as they decide what to do moving forward. This is JMEI post from Dec. 9th when a poster asked about our cap after getting Sale and Moreland.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 24, 2016 13:34:43 GMT -5
This is the most accurate spreadsheet of salaries I've seen and it has the Red Sox with $6.34 million under the luxury tax threshold now after they traded Buchholz. Can someone tell me what the difference is between that estimate and the one at Cot's (below) ? Both have about $13M in benefits included, but Cot's has us 15.4M under. What makes that other one better? docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mVYyinHlYUI0gE98AgFFb5tDFIoEatCfqEo2xDfv1NI/pubhtmlI think the one jimed posted is double-counting 40-man salaries. It has $6.5M for 40-man salaries but separately includes rows for a bunch of minimum-salaried players.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 24, 2016 13:39:14 GMT -5
I think the one jimed posted is double-counting 40-man salaries. It has $6.5M for 40-man salaries but separately includes rows for a bunch of minimum-salaried players. Yea I just added them up and that's what it looks like.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 24, 2016 14:15:45 GMT -5
I think the one jimed posted is double-counting 40-man salaries. It has $6.5M for 40-man salaries but separately includes rows for a bunch of minimum-salaried players. Yea I just added them up and that's what it looks like. If that's what happened, then they were still about $500k over with Buchholz.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 24, 2016 15:38:37 GMT -5
Yea I just added them up and that's what it looks like. If that's what happened, then they were still about $500k over with Buchholz. It all depends if there estimated arb numbers are correct. There are a ton of salaries that could be high or low, its just a guess at this point.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 25, 2016 5:14:49 GMT -5
Merry Christmas sox fans. Not going to kick any more dirt on Clay, but I think they made the right move. He helped the team out of the pen going down the stretch, sox picked up the option for insurance. They got better and found someone to pay him and stay under the cap. Good move.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 26, 2016 7:22:35 GMT -5
The Sox were likely over the cap. The problem with all the reports and spreadsheets is that no one really knows exactly how much the Sox spend on benefits and the rest of the 40 man roster throughout the year. If they underestimated those numbers then the Sox were under, if they overestimated then the Sox were over. Either way, it was really close. By choosing to move Buchholz I think it should be clear that the Sox themselves thought they would be over and chose to move him for mostly just salary releif and the ability to have a little payroll flexibility for mid season moves. It's up to each person to decide whether that was worth it to them (I'm fine with it because I couldnt watch another season of Buchholz throwing to first 50 times an inning). Cant even imagine how many times I yelled at the tv for Clay to just focus on the batter.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 26, 2016 15:02:11 GMT -5
I've loved and hated Clay throughout the years. Bottom line, he (and Lindsay) has done good work with his foundation/bowling events. I honestly hope he has a good year & gets a good contract going forward. He has to be thrilled about having an opportunity in a rotation rather than trying to build his value as a #7 or longman.
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 95
|
Post by hank on Apr 13, 2017 11:49:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Apr 13, 2017 12:56:32 GMT -5
Classic Buchholz
|
|
|