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 dcsoxfan on Jun 14, 2015 11:21:35 GMT -5
I think one of the most interesting questions going forth is what to do about Clay Buchholz.
Unlike a lot of posters here, I think he just might put it all together in his thirties. However, the Red Sox desperately need to add 200 quality innings to the rotation this off-season ( which would make Buchholz expendable). Add a top of the rotation starter to Porcello, Rodriguez, and some combination of Wright/Miley/Johnson and a bullpen of Kelly/Barnes/Tazawa and Uehara, and you have a contending pitching staff. Add in Buchholz and you really are set.
The problem here is the Red Sox have only one more year of control of Buchholz. Do they take on another risky contract and extend him in the hopes that he does turn the corner? Do they exercise his option and go for it hard in 2016? Or do they try to trade him for prospects this year to try to build a team capable of an extended run of excellence -- something they haven't really achieved in a century?
I'm kind of leaning toward option 3, but I really would like to see the Red Sox pursue a high-risk, high-reward approach, and I'm willing to be patient. I understand if others are not.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 14, 2015 11:32:34 GMT -5
The problem here is the Red Sox have only one more year of control of Buchholz. This is not really true. The Red Sox have a $13m club option for 2016 and a $13.5m option for 2017.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 14, 2015 11:45:30 GMT -5
The problem here is the Red Sox have only one more year of control of Buchholz. This is not really true. The Red Sox have a $13m club option for 2016 and a $13.5m option for 2017. Those options make Clay valuable to even small-market teams. I don't see us contending the next 2 years. If 3 months of Andrew Miller nets a prospect like E-Rod. What can we get for 2yr and 3 months of Clay?Even if he flops, the options canbe declined. Literally no risk for the acquiring team.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 14, 2015 11:56:59 GMT -5
I would deal Buchholz as soon as possible, while he still is pitching decently and has good value.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 14, 2015 13:45:38 GMT -5
I wouldn't trade Buchholz for anyone. We need good pitchers and he's one of them.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 14, 2015 13:57:36 GMT -5
I wouldn't trade Buchholz for anyone. We need good pitchers and he's one of them. I'd trade him for Chris Sale.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 14, 2015 13:59:07 GMT -5
This is not really true. The Red Sox have a $13m club option for 2016 and a $13.5m option for 2017. Those options make Clay valuable to even small-market teams. I don't see us contending the next 2 years. If 3 months of Andrew Miller nets a prospect like E-Rod. What can we get for 2yr and 3 months of Clay?Even if he flops, the options canbe declined. Literally no risk for the acquiring team. (1) We need to stop using Miller/Rodriguez as the barometer for deals. That was an atypical return in that (a) a desperate Orioles team clearly overpaid for the best reliever on the market and (b) Rodriguez unexpectedly improved significantly following the trade. They're almost certainly not going to get a guy who as good as June 2015 Eduardo Rodriguez for Buchholz. (2) Yes, there's little financial risk, but there's a great deal of performance and injury risk with Buchholz. Teams are far more likely to see him as a Brandon McCarthy-type than even a John Lackey-type, which means I'm not sure they're going to see the kind of offers that would make it worth it. (3) As discussed here, I think they're capable of contending in 2016 and certainly by 2017.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 14, 2015 14:01:44 GMT -5
I would deal Buchholz as soon as possible, while he still is pitching decently and has good value. Teams aren't this short-sighted. Even if he continues to pitch well, teams aren't going to suddenly forget his history of inconsistency.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 14, 2015 14:05:12 GMT -5
I wouldn't trade Buchholz for anyone. We need good pitchers and he's one of them. I'd trade him for Chris Sale. Everytime I make a comment like that, it's implied that I wouldn't trade him for anyone that is actually offered. Taijuan Walker plus more is the minimum.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 14, 2015 14:16:39 GMT -5
I'd trade him for Chris Sale. Everytime I make a comment like that, it's implied that I wouldn't trade him for anyone that is actually offered. Taijuan Walker plus more is the minimum. The fact of the matter is I don't know why this thread even exists... so...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 14, 2015 14:19:02 GMT -5
Everytime I make a comment like that, it's implied that I wouldn't trade him for anyone that is actually offered. Taijuan Walker plus more is the minimum. The fact of the matter is I don't know why this thread even exists... so... Please leave the moderating to the moderators.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 14, 2015 14:39:00 GMT -5
Those options make Clay valuable to even small-market teams. I don't see us contending the next 2 years. If 3 months of Andrew Miller nets a prospect like E-Rod. What can we get for 2yr and 3 months of Clay?Even if he flops, the options canbe declined. Literally no risk for the acquiring team. (1) We need to stop using Miller/Rodriguez as the barometer for deals. That was an atypical return in that (a) a desperate Orioles team clearly overpaid for the best reliever on the market and (b) Rodriguez unexpectedly improved significantly following the trade. They're almost certainly not going to get a guy who as good as June 2015 Eduardo Rodriguez for Buchholz. (2) Yes, there's little financial risk, but there's a great deal of performance and injury risk with Buchholz. Teams are far more likely to see him as a Brandon McCarthy-type than even a John Lackey-type, which means I'm not sure they're going to see the kind of offers that would make it worth it. (3) As discussed here, I think they're capable of contending in 2016 and certainly by 2017. Am I allowed to compare him to Samardzija? OR, is that frowned upon in this establishment?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 14, 2015 14:40:07 GMT -5
We're not getting Addison Russell for him either.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 14, 2015 14:41:35 GMT -5
Those options make Clay valuable to even small-market teams. I don't see us contending the next 2 years. If 3 months of Andrew Miller nets a prospect like E-Rod. What can we get for 2yr and 3 months of Clay?Even if he flops, the options canbe declined. Literally no risk for the acquiring team. (1) We need to stop using Miller/Rodriguez as the barometer for deals. That was an atypical return in that (a) a desperate Orioles team clearly overpaid for the best reliever on the market and (b) Rodriguez unexpectedly improved significantly following the trade. They're almost certainly not going to get a guy who as good as June 2015 Eduardo Rodriguez for Buchholz. (2) Yes, there's little financial risk, but there's a great deal of performance and injury risk with Buchholz. Teams are far more likely to see him as a Brandon McCarthy-type than even a John Lackey-type, which means I'm not sure they're going to see the kind of offers that would make it worth it. (3) As discussed here, I think they're capable of contending in 2016 and certainly by 2017. How bout Matt Garza? 34-31 with a 3.86 era in TB. FIP 4.24, and they ended up with Chris Archer.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 14, 2015 14:45:10 GMT -5
We're not getting Addison Russell for him either. How bout RA Dickey? Syndegaard and D'Arnaud??
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 14, 2015 14:46:01 GMT -5
Heck, we gave up Cespedes for 1yr of Porcello.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 14, 2015 16:23:47 GMT -5
Let's compare:
Clay Buchholz (age 30): 2.5 years of team control, (prorated) $12m, $13m club option, $13.5m club option Past three years: 466.2 IP, 3.99 ERA, 3.52 FIP, 3.78 xFIP Past year: 199.1 IP, 4.47 ERA, 3.30 FIP, 3.51 xFIP
Jeff Samardzija (age 29): 1.5 years of team control, (prorated) $5.3m, arb3 ($9.8m) Past three years: 537.2 IP, 3.68 ERA, 3.51 FIP, 3.39 xFIP Past year: 208.1 IP, 4.10 ERA, 3.77 FIP, 3.52 xFIP
Matt Garza (age 28): 3 years of team control, arb1, arb2, arb3 ($6m, $9.5m, $10.3m) Past three years: 592.1 IP, 3.86 ERA, 4.24 FIP, 4.29 xFIP Past year: 204.2 IP, 3.91 ERA, 4.42 FIP, 4.31 xFIP
R.A. Dickey (age 38): 4 years of team control, $5m, $12m, $12m, $13m Past three years: 616.2 IP, 2.95 ERA, 3.55 FIP, 3.64 xFIP Past year: 233.2 IP, 2.73 ERA, 3.27 FIP, 3.27 xFIP
The big difference is with regards to innings pitched, and Buchholz has generally been worse on the field as well (Garza is the exception, but that is another one of those outlier deals that was widely panned at the time). The point is well taken that there might always be a team out there willing to overpay and that teams have done just that, but I think Buchholz is legitimately a step down from those three, and I'd expect the offers the Red Sox get for him to reflect that.
If a team out there is willing to overpay with a top-30-type prospect/young player at a position of need (1B, SP, maybe 3B or corner outfield) or multiple top-75-type prospects? Of course I'd consider it. I'm just skeptical that that sort of offer is out there.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,918
|
Post by nomar on Jun 14, 2015 17:19:39 GMT -5
Some Cubs fans suggested a Buchholz for Baez swap last week. Sign me up.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 14, 2015 18:13:13 GMT -5
Let's compare: Clay Buchholz (age 30): 2.5 years of team control, (prorated) $12m, $13m club option, $13.5m club option Past three years: 466.2 IP, 3.99 ERA, 3.52 FIP, 3.78 xFIP Past year: 199.1 IP, 4.47 ERA, 3.30 FIP, 3.51 xFIP Jeff Samardzija (age 29): 1.5 years of team control, (prorated) $5.3m, arb3 ($9.8m) Past three years: 537.2 IP, 3.68 ERA, 3.51 FIP, 3.39 xFIP Past year: 208.1 IP, 4.10 ERA, 3.77 FIP, 3.52 xFIP Matt Garza (age 28): 3 years of team control, arb1, arb2, arb3 ($6m, $9.5m, $10.3m) Past three years: 592.1 IP, 3.86 ERA, 4.24 FIP, 4.29 xFIP Past year: 204.2 IP, 3.91 ERA, 4.42 FIP, 4.31 xFIP R.A. Dickey (age 38): 4 years of team control, $5m, $12m, $12m, $13m Past three years: 616.2 IP, 2.95 ERA, 3.55 FIP, 3.64 xFIP Past year: 233.2 IP, 2.73 ERA, 3.27 FIP, 3.27 xFIP The big difference is with regards to innings pitched, and Buchholz has generally been worse on the field as well (Garza is the exception, but that is another one of those outlier deals that was widely panned at the time). The point is well taken that there might always be a team out there willing to overpay and that teams have done just that, but I think Buchholz is legitimately a step down from those three, and I'd expect the offers the Red Sox get for him to reflect that. If a team out there is willing to overpay with a top-30-type prospect/young player at a position of need (1B, SP, maybe 3B or corner outfield) or multiple top-75-type prospects? Of course I'd consider it. I'm just skeptical that that sort of offer is out there. Are we debating who the better pitcher is? Or, whether we can get a good return if we deal Clay? Ya know, most trades aren't 1 for 1. We have other pieces that can be added to assist a contender.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 14, 2015 18:35:54 GMT -5
We're debating whether or not it's worth it to trade Clay Buchholz. My argument is that it's probably not worth it, because he's unlikely to fetch more in a trade than he'd be worth to the Red Sox. Adding another piece to the equation isn't suddenly going to make Buchholz much more appealing to a trade partner, especially since the Red Sox don't really have that many other pieces.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jun 14, 2015 18:46:33 GMT -5
Some Cubs fans suggested a Buchholz for Baez swap last week. Sign me up. I was thinking more along the lines of Buchholz for Schwarber, and then go all in on David Price. Note: that's not to say Scwarber is sufficient compensation for Buchholz; it's just that given the two teams' current situations, it is a more reasonable starting point.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 14, 2015 18:57:46 GMT -5
Some Cubs fans suggested a Buchholz for Baez swap last week. Sign me up. I was thinking more along the lines of Buchholz for Schwarber, and then go all in on David Price. Note: that's not to say Scwarber is sufficient compensation for Buchholz; it's just that given the two teams' current situations, it is a more reasonable starting point. I suggested Schwarber a couple of weeks ago. We don't have a bat like his in our system. I think he can move to 1b. He's about on the brink of being ready. Doubt they trade him. I'd consider Buchholz and Margot for Schwarber and a good pitching prospect from them. With Benintendi on board, just don't see Margot playing for us.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 14, 2015 18:59:17 GMT -5
We're debating whether or not it's worth it to trade Clay Buchholz. My argument is that it's probably not worth it, because he's unlikely to fetch more in a trade than he'd be worth to the Red Sox. Adding another piece to the equation isn't suddenly going to make Buchholz much more appealing to a trade partner, especially since the Red Sox don't really have that many other pieces. I don't think we're going to be any good next year either. That's why I'd deal him. Mookie and Swihart aren't going to turn into Trout and Posey this off-season. We basically have one position open. First base. Hard to see us becoming an offensive juggernaut over-night.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jun 14, 2015 19:00:38 GMT -5
Let me also say that I don't think the Red Sox are under any pressure to deal Buchholz. However, if they have concluded, as they should have, that they need to sign one of the premium starting pitchers on the market this off-season, they would then have the luxury to trade Buchholz for prospects.
Trading for prospects really is a market efficiency. In trades involving high end prospects the long term return tends to be about two to one in favor of the prospects (caveat: based on limited sample size). This is not surprising as one would expect present wins to be valued more highly than future wins.
I would not even consider trading Buchholz if at least one elite prospect wasn't included in the return.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jun 14, 2015 19:04:07 GMT -5
I was thinking more along the lines of Buchholz for Schwarber, and then go all in on David Price. Note: that's not to say Scwarber is sufficient compensation for Buchholz; it's just that given the two teams' current situations, it is a more reasonable starting point. I suggested Schwarber a couple of weeks ago. We don't have a bat like his in our system. I think he can move to 1b. He's about on the brink of being ready. Doubt they trade him. I'd consider Buchholz and Margot for Schwarber and a good pitching prospect from them. With Benintendi on board, just don't see Margot playing for us. Overpay. Buchholz's market value (if he pitched well the next month) is significantly higher than that of Schwarber. If the Cubs don't want to pay market price, look elsewhere. Someone will.
|
|
|