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.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 29, 2015 15:38:38 GMT -5
But we know who the replacement will be. It's a choice of two of Wright, Owens, and Johnson (one will either be dealt or the 5th starter). Whoever that guy is will be better than replacement level; in fact, you know that I think Wright, who seems likeliest to be the guy, has a good chance to be better than average.
When you have a guy who averages $18M of value a year even with his injuries (Edit: this year, as jimoh estimated, he was 55% of a 4.8 bWAR / 5.7 fWAR pitcher), and you can get him for $13M, you do it. Period. DDo has already announced he's doing it if Buchholz is healthy. It's about as startling as his saying that JBJ will start in the OF next year. Can we please stop wasting time disagreeing over what is already a done and entirely obvious decision? Yes, we know it bothers you all when Buchholz gets hurt. That's the only thing that's driving the desire to let him go: that you don't like the fact that he gets hurt. Eric, I want to preface this by saying I am a huge fan of what you bring to this board. But in this case I think you are dug in and not seeing some of the other factors that make Buchholz a potential drag on the 2016 roster: - When you state we know who will step in for Buch if/when he gets hurt you are making the assumption that all 4 other starters will not go on the DL. You absolutely have to factor in the lost productivity when determining the value of any starter, and be open to the fact that some of those starts will need to be made by a journeyman AAA arm. - You're assuming Johnson and Owens will both be reilable and at least league average starters, which is partiularly dangerous when discussing Johnson (Health). And this is assuming Wright is the #5 (my hope) and performing well, also not a given. - Those of us who don't like the fact Buchholz gets hurt probably also don't like his long stretches of poor performance too. Granted he was as good as he's ever been the first half of this year, but when was the last time he put 2 seasons of great performance together back to back? - DDo sounds to me like he's trying in many circumstances to maximize the trade value of everyone right now, with his praise for the 3 young OF's, trying Hanley at 1B, and now in what he said about Clay. Very smart, but even with his comment I don't see it as a slam dunk he's on our 2016 roster. I'm not really saying your wrong, you very well could be correct. And a transformed Joe Kelly could improve the depth enough to make gambling on a healthy Buchholz worth the risk. But there is absolutely, 100% a logical 2nd side to this debate that shouldn't be overlooked. Just one of these points is good. But it's real good and I've absolutely neglected it. If you pay Buchholz $13M and he gives you his average performance, in order to lose out, his replacements, including the guys further down on the depth chart than the guys you have designated as his backups (and thanks for pointing out that Kelly will likely be an option as well) will have to have negative $5M of value. Well below replacement level. That's not a real concern. The third point is real. He hasn't been worth the $13M in two of his last six seasons, and they were the years after he had to shut it down the previous year. If you think that's random, you pick up the option 100% of the time. If you think it's a guaranteed cause and effect, you decline it. Of course, it's somewhere in between. He's averaged $23.5M of value his last three seasons following a full season. That's a starting point. If you want to go back and include 2010, it's $28.8M. He was on his way to a $35M season (based on 30 starts rather than 33) when he was hurt this year. His 2010 was worth nearly $45M. There is a real possibility he'll be worthless next year. There is another chunk of possibility that he'll be worth $23M or $25M, and there's a small but very real chance he'll be worth $35M or more. What we're essentially doing here is projecting his value by weighting his two down years more while not ignoring his potential to be even better. My gut feeling is that there's a 40% chance he's a bust and a 10% chance he finally stays healthy pitching like he can. Use $23.5M for the 50% in between, and $35M for the good case. Interestingly, that happens to add up to a projected $15M (15.25, to be precise), which is precisely what one of Cafardo's sources guessed he would get on the free market if we turned down his option. Now, the better the alternatives are, the less on-the-field risk there is; you're gambling money but hopefully not much in the way of wins. But the upside, where he's worth more and maybe way more than his paycheck, is all wins.
Here's a way to re-frame the argument emotionally, that transmutes it into something more rational. If you were the fan of another team, and had never experienced the angst of the injuries, and you had three or four really promising candidates for your 5th starter comparable to Wright, Kelly, and Owens and/or Johnson (one may be traded), all of whom you could use in other roles (short man, long man, AAA depth) would you be interested in gambling $13M on Buchholz, since he is likely to give you $15M in value, and has that chance to come up huge, and give you $25 or even $35M? I think you'd be all over that like brown on healthy rice. And obviously, I think that if he'd been pitching for another team, and no one on this board had ever experienced the hope that he'd be good and the disappointment that he'd been bad and all the angst about his body language and makeup, blah blah blah, and we could sign him to a 1/$13M deal, the clamor to do this would be deafening. A guy whom you absolutely know is a $35M talent, who will barely hurt you if he's a bust because of your existing depth (you just need to cut bait on him and go to better options if he struggles), who has performance and health risk but comes with just a $13M price tag? Greatest gamble in the world. Do it now, DDo! Cherington would have been too dumb! People on this board are so used to the upside that all they see is the risk. But in reality, it's almost all reward.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 29, 2015 15:44:43 GMT -5
You also have to consider that it only costs $13 million and there's a possibility that he is elite for 2 seasons. But you wouldn't get to exercise the 2nd option with taking the 1st one. I mean which is the worst case scenario? That you decline the option and he wins the Cy Young the next two seasons or that he is crap and you waste $13 million?
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 29, 2015 16:18:15 GMT -5
I'll throw another knock out there that I have with Clay that doesn't get discussed. The goal is to be playing in October. Not necessarily winning it all. But, as more teams make the playoffs. You have a chance to win it all by being not much than an average team. However, your best players will have to perform in order to win it. It's not much different than the old NHL playoffs. You had a best of 3, and then 3 7gm series. Gotta be able to answer the bell in October. Players started to be evaluated more and more by how they performed in the playoffs. Not just the regular season.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 29, 2015 19:05:36 GMT -5
I'll throw another knock out there that I have with Clay that doesn't get discussed. The goal is to be playing in October. Not necessarily winning it all. But, as more teams make the playoffs. You have a chance to win it all by being not much than an average team. However, your best players will have to perform in order to win it. It's not much different than the old NHL playoffs. You had a best of 3, and then 3 7gm series. Gotta be able to answer the bell in October. Players started to be evaluated more and more by how they performed in the playoffs. Not just the regular season. That is why I think Buchholz could be a great closer for us. His body can not handle 200 innings. But as a closer throwing 70 to 80 innings per year, he could be a force in all year an especially in September, October and November.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Aug 29, 2015 19:20:03 GMT -5
I'll throw another knock out there that I have with Clay that doesn't get discussed. The goal is to be playing in October. Not necessarily winning it all. But, as more teams make the playoffs. You have a chance to win it all by being not much than an average team. However, your best players will have to perform in order to win it. It's not much different than the old NHL playoffs. You had a best of 3, and then 3 7gm series. Gotta be able to answer the bell in October. Players started to be evaluated more and more by how they performed in the playoffs. Not just the regular season. That is why I think Buchholz could be a great closer for us. His body can not handle 200 innings. But as a closer throwing 70 to 80 innings per year, he could be a force in all year an especially in September, October and November. Absolutely agree. If anything has been shown to be true the last few seasons it is that Clay cannot physically handle being a ML starting pitcher at this point. There have been starters, ones much better than Clay (Eck and Smoltz spring to mind), who have transitioned to being very good/elite closers in the second half of their careers. And at his age there is not much more rubber left on Koji's tires. We are going to need a new closer in the near future and I think Clay could be lights out in the role.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,824
|
Post by wcp3 on Aug 30, 2015 7:28:42 GMT -5
Moving to the bullpen would negate pretty much all of Clay's strength as a starter (multiple good-to-great pitches). Plus, isn't he one of those guys who doesn't always start games well?
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 30, 2015 7:33:07 GMT -5
I'll throw another knock out there that I have with Clay that doesn't get discussed. The goal is to be playing in October. Not necessarily winning it all. But, as more teams make the playoffs. You have a chance to win it all by being not much than an average team. However, your best players will have to perform in order to win it. It's not much different than the old NHL playoffs. You had a best of 3, and then 3 7gm series. Gotta be able to answer the bell in October. Players started to be evaluated more and more by how they performed in the playoffs. Not just the regular season. That is by an large just random.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 30, 2015 7:39:02 GMT -5
I hope they pick up his option (of course that means his health is assured). I hope he does well for a few months and then we trade him along with one of our pitching prospects (pick one between Johnson and Owens). The team that trades for Clay, has the option to pick up his option so even if he is injured again they would only owe the balance of the season that is left aka a fraction of $13M. If he's hurt they have a solid back end of the rotation prospect or middle rotation for a lesser team. The reason the Sox make the deal is to assure a steady #2 type pitcher who is not arbitration eligible for at least another season. I'm sure the list of players that fit that criteria is very small if any. If there is no-one available then I ride Clay's deal out.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Aug 30, 2015 8:13:24 GMT -5
Eric,
Just a quick question. In one of your posts up thread you mentioned there being a "scenario where Hanley fails at first base", had a couple of other things following that, and then said it was a long shot. My question for you is did you mean you think that it's a long shot we make the series of transactions following OR that you think it's a long shot Hanley fails at first base.
For a while now I've been hoping we'd move Hanley to 1b, quite simply because it solves a ton of problems. I'm just curious if there is something you or some other posters might have to show that Hanley projects to be a good 1b (other than simply moving down the defensive spectrum, and that he was once a short stop). While I like the idea of trying it (and hope he gets about 15 games there this season), honestly, I don't know what to think about the chance of it actually succeeding.
I would be very intrigued to see this line up: LF-Betts; 2b-Pedroia; SS-Bogaerts; DH-Ortiz; 1b-Ramirez; 3b-Shaw/Holt platoon; RF-Castillo; C-Swihart; CF-Bradley Jr next season. (I realize that Holt and Shaw are both LHH, however, Holt has a reverse split for his career - and this year - against LHP. Obviously this assumes that Bradley Jr continues to hit well this year, and we move him to CF and Betts to LF going into Spring Training next season.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Aug 30, 2015 9:37:46 GMT -5
I'll go on record as saying there is no way realistically speaking that I want Buchholz' option picked up unless it's a way to deal him to another team that has more luxury tax space than we do (or is a smaller market team that over-pays based on his two option years). In an ordinary circumstance, I agree that I'd want the Red Sox to take a 1yr/$13m gamble on a pitcher of Buchholz' talent, however, with roughly $21M (Sandoval), $22M (Ramirez) and starting next season $20M (Porcello) in basically wasted money, I don't think we have such a luxury.
If Dombrowski is somehow able to pull a Dodgers-lite miracle off and get rid of Ramirez and Sandoval's entire contracts, sure, pick up the option on Buchholz, but I don't think that is at all realistic. As such, I'd far rather have the $13m from Buchholz to use toward acquiring David Price than on the half season of good Clay we're likely to receive.
I think any situation where we sell off the next 5 years of control of Rodriguez or Owens (or send them back to AAA) is much less desirable than missing out on the small chance that in his (I think) 10th year in MLB that Buchholz finally puts it together. My opinion remains that I think we should pay the money for David Price (by jettisoning Sandoval and Buchholz), acquire a second starter like Carrasco or Quintana, and filling out the rotation with whomever is left between Porcello and Miley (dealing one) with Rodriguez and Owens as the 4th and 5th starters, though I think Rodriguez will be our "number 2" based on performance.
This team is in a very similar position to where I think the Cubs were last year (going into this year) and that is why this is the time to spend big on an FA pitcher (like they did with Lester) and cash in some blocked pieces (lets call it Margot, Guerera, Miley and Marrero) to get a number 2 type of starter. But you hold on to all the young MLB players.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Aug 30, 2015 18:36:30 GMT -5
Eric, I want to preface this by saying I am a huge fan of what you bring to this board. But in this case I think you are dug in and not seeing some of the other factors that make Buchholz a potential drag on the 2016 roster: - When you state we know who will step in for Buch if/when he gets hurt you are making the assumption that all 4 other starters will not go on the DL. You absolutely have to factor in the lost productivity when determining the value of any starter, and be open to the fact that some of those starts will need to be made by a journeyman AAA arm. - You're assuming Johnson and Owens will both be reilable and at least league average starters, which is partiularly dangerous when discussing Johnson (Health). And this is assuming Wright is the #5 (my hope) and performing well, also not a given. - Those of us who don't like the fact Buchholz gets hurt probably also don't like his long stretches of poor performance too. Granted he was as good as he's ever been the first half of this year, but when was the last time he put 2 seasons of great performance together back to back? - DDo sounds to me like he's trying in many circumstances to maximize the trade value of everyone right now, with his praise for the 3 young OF's, trying Hanley at 1B, and now in what he said about Clay. Very smart, but even with his comment I don't see it as a slam dunk he's on our 2016 roster. I'm not really saying your wrong, you very well could be correct. And a transformed Joe Kelly could improve the depth enough to make gambling on a healthy Buchholz worth the risk. But there is absolutely, 100% a logical 2nd side to this debate that shouldn't be overlooked. Just one of these points is good. But it's real good and I've absolutely neglected it. If you pay Buchholz $13M and he gives you his average performance, in order to lose out, his replacements, including the guys further down on the depth chart than the guys you have designated as his backups (and thanks for pointing out that Kelly will likely be an option as well) will have to have negative $5M of value. Well below replacement level. That's not a real concern. The third point is real. He hasn't been worth the $13M in two of his last six seasons, and they were the years after he had to shut it down the previous year. If you think that's random, you pick up the option 100% of the time. If you think it's a guaranteed cause and effect, you decline it. Of course, it's somewhere in between. He's averaged $23.5M of value his last three seasons following a full season. That's a starting point. If you want to go back and include 2010, it's $28.8M. He was on his way to a $35M season (based on 30 starts rather than 33) when he was hurt this year. His 2010 was worth nearly $45M. There is a real possibility he'll be worthless next year. There is another chunk of possibility that he'll be worth $23M or $25M, and there's a small but very real chance he'll be worth $35M or more. What we're essentially doing here is projecting his value by weighting his two down years more while not ignoring his potential to be even better. My gut feeling is that there's a 40% chance he's a bust and a 10% chance he finally stays healthy pitching like he can. Use $23.5M for the 50% in between, and $35M for the good case. Interestingly, that happens to add up to a projected $15M (15.25, to be precise), which is precisely what one of Cafardo's sources guessed he would get on the free market if we turned down his option. Now, the better the alternatives are, the less on-the-field risk there is; you're gambling money but hopefully not much in the way of wins. But the upside, where he's worth more and maybe way more than his paycheck, is all wins.
Here's a way to re-frame the argument emotionally, that transmutes it into something more rational. If you were the fan of another team, and had never experienced the angst of the injuries, and you had three or four really promising candidates for your 5th starter comparable to Wright, Kelly, and Owens and/or Johnson (one may be traded), all of whom you could use in other roles (short man, long man, AAA depth) would you be interested in gambling $13M on Buchholz, since he is likely to give you $15M in value, and has that chance to come up huge, and give you $25 or even $35M? I think you'd be all over that like brown on healthy rice. And obviously, I think that if he'd been pitching for another team, and no one on this board had ever experienced the hope that he'd be good and the disappointment that he'd been bad and all the angst about his body language and makeup, blah blah blah, and we could sign him to a 1/$13M deal, the clamor to do this would be deafening. A guy whom you absolutely know is a $35M talent, who will barely hurt you if he's a bust because of your existing depth (you just need to cut bait on him and go to better options if he struggles), who has performance and health risk but comes with just a $13M price tag? Greatest gamble in the world. Do it now, DDo! Cherington would have been too dumb! People on this board are so used to the upside that all they see is the risk. But in reality, it's almost all reward. You save the money for david price. Buc comes back its at a reduced price, not 13 million. The player cannot stay on the field.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 30, 2015 18:45:20 GMT -5
You save the money for david price. Buc comes back its at a reduced price, not 13 million. The player cannot stay on the field. In Cafardo's article, he said that an AL source suggested Clay would get about 3/$45 million on the open market right now. So not exercising the option is pure stupidity if that's true. Take the option and trade him then if you don't want him, because he has more value than his contract. Don't give him away for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Aug 30, 2015 19:01:22 GMT -5
Buchholz is easily flippable as he's only on a short-term deal. The only way you don't pickup that option is if he's done for all of 2016.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 30, 2015 21:28:54 GMT -5
Just one of these points is good. But it's real good and I've absolutely neglected it. If you pay Buchholz $13M and he gives you his average performance, in order to lose out, his replacements, including the guys further down on the depth chart than the guys you have designated as his backups (and thanks for pointing out that Kelly will likely be an option as well) will have to have negative $5M of value. Well below replacement level. That's not a real concern. The third point is real. He hasn't been worth the $13M in two of his last six seasons, and they were the years after he had to shut it down the previous year. If you think that's random, you pick up the option 100% of the time. If you think it's a guaranteed cause and effect, you decline it. Of course, it's somewhere in between. He's averaged $23.5M of value his last three seasons following a full season. That's a starting point. If you want to go back and include 2010, it's $28.8M. He was on his way to a $35M season (based on 30 starts rather than 33) when he was hurt this year. His 2010 was worth nearly $45M. There is a real possibility he'll be worthless next year. There is another chunk of possibility that he'll be worth $23M or $25M, and there's a small but very real chance he'll be worth $35M or more. What we're essentially doing here is projecting his value by weighting his two down years more while not ignoring his potential to be even better. My gut feeling is that there's a 40% chance he's a bust and a 10% chance he finally stays healthy pitching like he can. Use $23.5M for the 50% in between, and $35M for the good case. Interestingly, that happens to add up to a projected $15M (15.25, to be precise), which is precisely what one of Cafardo's sources guessed he would get on the free market if we turned down his option. Now, the better the alternatives are, the less on-the-field risk there is; you're gambling money but hopefully not much in the way of wins. But the upside, where he's worth more and maybe way more than his paycheck, is all wins.
Here's a way to re-frame the argument emotionally, that transmutes it into something more rational. If you were the fan of another team, and had never experienced the angst of the injuries, and you had three or four really promising candidates for your 5th starter comparable to Wright, Kelly, and Owens and/or Johnson (one may be traded), all of whom you could use in other roles (short man, long man, AAA depth) would you be interested in gambling $13M on Buchholz, since he is likely to give you $15M in value, and has that chance to come up huge, and give you $25 or even $35M? I think you'd be all over that like brown on healthy rice. And obviously, I think that if he'd been pitching for another team, and no one on this board had ever experienced the hope that he'd be good and the disappointment that he'd been bad and all the angst about his body language and makeup, blah blah blah, and we could sign him to a 1/$13M deal, the clamor to do this would be deafening. A guy whom you absolutely know is a $35M talent, who will barely hurt you if he's a bust because of your existing depth (you just need to cut bait on him and go to better options if he struggles), who has performance and health risk but comes with just a $13M price tag? Greatest gamble in the world. Do it now, DDo! Cherington would have been too dumb! People on this board are so used to the upside that all they see is the risk. But in reality, it's almost all reward. You save the money for david price. Buc comes back its at a reduced price, not 13 million. The player cannot stay on the field. Given dombrowski's history with price, do we really think dombrowski would attempt to sign price to a big contract this offseason? I think it is safe to say that bc would have probably passed on price, but dombrowski is a different animal altogether? If he does get price, we have a ton of left handed starters, , so does that make a Miley or Owens or Rodriguez or Johnson expendable?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 30, 2015 22:54:24 GMT -5
Eric, Just a quick question. In one of your posts up thread you mentioned there being a "scenario where Hanley fails at first base", had a couple of other things following that, and then said it was a long shot. My question for you is did you mean you think that it's a long shot we make the series of transactions following OR that you think it's a long shot Hanley fails at first base.
For a while now I've been hoping we'd move Hanley to 1b, quite simply because it solves a ton of problems. I'm just curious if there is something you or some other posters might have to show that Hanley projects to be a good 1b (other than simply moving down the defensive spectrum, and that he was once a short stop). While I like the idea of trying it (and hope he gets about 15 games there this season), honestly, I don't know what to think about the chance of it actually succeeding. I would be very intrigued to see this line up: LF-Betts; 2b-Pedroia; SS-Bogaerts; DH-Ortiz; 1b-Ramirez; 3b-Shaw/Holt platoon; RF-Castillo; C-Swihart; CF-Bradley Jr next season. (I realize that Holt and Shaw are both LHH, however, Holt has a reverse split for his career - and this year - against LHP. Obviously this assumes that Bradley Jr continues to hit well this year, and we move him to CF and Betts to LF going into Spring Training next season. Yes. Both. There's another scenario where Hanley fails at 1B, and they dump him and trade kids for a 1B, and the FA starter is the only rotation addition. But that seems like a longshot.I think that Hanley failing so badly at 1B that it becomes wise to dump him is itself a longshot. If that happens, they have two options: sign Davis or Park and use the kids to trade for a pitcher as probably planned anyway, or do what I said above. I think that in that scenario, it might be slightly likelier that they sign a 1B and trade for a P than vice versa, but essentially that full scenario is about as half as likely as the Hanley failure that triggers it. In the Hanley to 1B thread, I said (a bunch of times) that he probably projects to be average to above average in terms of range, and average at picking throws, and that he has a chance to be really, really bad at playing the position right (where to go and what to do when he gets there). Solid skills, bad smarts and instincts. The thing is, though, for all they stick in our minds, stuff like botching a makeable play because you ranged too far, or cutting off a throw that could have had the runner out at he plate -- everything that could be classified as a "mental error" -- that stuff is relatively rare. Someone terrible might cost his team 6 runs in a whole year, max. I like the chances of his being able to play there and not hurt us too much, even though it will be, at times, aesthetically unpleasant. Oh, in your next post you asserted that Hanley, Sandoval, and Porcello will be worthless next year, when I would be willing to be that, combined, they will be worth more than their salary next year. It's going to project out to close to a wash.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Sept 1, 2015 16:28:16 GMT -5
Hey, I got an idea... We need an ace...sign Price. Then we won't have to gut our farm. Or is that not in "the spirit" of this thread? Trading players who project to never start for you is not "gutting the farm." The point of having a tremendous farm system is to trade the excess talent, no matter how good, to get talent that fills holes. We are in a position to trade Margot because we have two great outfielders and two great prospects, ETA mid-2017, to fill the third spot. Does Margot have more value to us as 4th outfielder, or as the centerpiece of Billy Beane's next great A's team? If you believe in Vazquez (and I've been pounding that drum for two or three years), then you have Swihart, Margot, Guerra, and Marrero all blocked by (at present) better players. That's mind-boggling. That can turn Wade Miley into almost any pitcher in baseball. And those guys have very little value to you.Your exactly right brother. Trade from a position of organizational depth.. I will ssy "If" you move Swihart, it has to be for elite talent. Far as anyone suggesting that MBetts be on the block, there all nuts.. You have the possibility of watching 3 potential gold glove players in the OF. You do not mess with that at any cost..
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Sept 1, 2015 18:17:22 GMT -5
You save the money for david price. Buc comes back its at a reduced price, not 13 million. The player cannot stay on the field. In Cafardo's article, he said that an AL source suggested Clay would get about 3/$45 million on the open market right now. So not exercising the option is pure stupidity if that's true. Take the option and trade him then if you don't want him, because he has more value than his contract. Don't give him away for nothing. Next time Cafardo is right will be a first. Bucholz is not durable enough to warrant an option or yet another deal. The President has already stated an Ace will be had. Somebody has to go. Take that option money plus Miley or kelly and find bullpen help
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 1, 2015 18:33:00 GMT -5
In Cafardo's article, he said that an AL source suggested Clay would get about 3/$45 million on the open market right now. So not exercising the option is pure stupidity if that's true. Take the option and trade him then if you don't want him, because he has more value than his contract. Don't give him away for nothing. Next time Cafardo is right will be a first. Bucholz is not durable enough to warrant an option or yet another deal. The President has already stated an Ace will be had. Somebody has to go. Take that option money plus Miley or kelly and find bullpen help If you look at what pitchers get, 3/45 makes total sense. A 1 year/13 million with a 1 year/13 million option is such a no-brainer. He had 3.1 fWAR for us this season, which is worth well over $20 million in a little more than half a season. If you really really hate 3.1 fWAR from any starting pitcher, then trade him for a significant amount on his current contract. It would be next to impossible to replace 3.1 fWAR for $13 million, factoring the prospect costs if you're not signing a free agent.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Sept 1, 2015 19:35:34 GMT -5
In Cafardo's article, he said that an AL source suggested Clay would get about 3/$45 million on the open market right now. So not exercising the option is pure stupidity if that's true. Take the option and trade him then if you don't want him, because he has more value than his contract. Don't give him away for nothing. Next time Cafardo is right will be a first. Yup, Buchholz would get more than that as a FA.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Sept 1, 2015 19:37:55 GMT -5
Price/Cueto, Porcello, Buchholz, Rodriguez, (Miley/Kelly/Owens/Johnson/etc)
If they go the FA route for a #1 guy, the assumption is that some combination of the guys listed above in the 5 spot get moved for bullpen/bench help. A trade for a #1 starter makes more sense from the point of what resources the Sox currently have. But it's rare for a legit #1 with multiple years of control to get moved for a prospect package, even if one of Buch/Miley/Kelly were involved.
Clearly don't see Rodriguez needing more time in AAA, same for Kelly. Owens probably doesn't need it, but might end up there at least to start the year, same thing with Johnson. Any of the above that start in AAA will be needed with the big club in short time anyways, it always ends up that way.
If they plan on getting an ace on the market, no chance they can stay under the luxury tax. At that point, you might as well pick up Buchholz's option. Worst case, you are out $. Best case, he pitches like a stud for at least half a season, or he becomes a decent trade piece at the deadline
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Sept 2, 2015 12:54:29 GMT -5
If they plan on getting an ace on the market, no chance they can stay under the luxury tax. At that point, you might as well pick up Buchholz's option. Worst case, you are out $. Best case, he pitches like a stud for at least half a season, or he becomes a decent trade piece at the deadline Or they pick up his option and trade him in the offseason. My guess is that DD's plan re: pitching is this: 1. Pick up Buchholz's option 2. Find an ace in free agency 3. Find at least one back-end bullpen arm in free agency 4. Trade Buchholz/Miley/prospects in one or more deals for a #2 starter and/or additional bullpen help Result: Rotation - [FA], [trade], Porcello, Rodriguez, Kelly Bullpen - Uehara, [FA 8th inn.], Tazawa, [trade], Hembree, Ross +1 (Ogando/Machi/Layne/Wright/?)
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 2, 2015 13:00:03 GMT -5
If they plan on getting an ace on the market, no chance they can stay under the luxury tax. At that point, you might as well pick up Buchholz's option. Worst case, you are out $. Best case, he pitches like a stud for at least half a season, or he becomes a decent trade piece at the deadline Or they pick up his option and trade him in the offseason. My guess is that DD's plan re: pitching is this: 1. Pick up Buchholz's option 2. Find an ace in free agency 3. Find at least one back-end bullpen arm in free agency 4. Trade Buchholz/Miley/prospects in one or more deals for a #2 starter and/or additional bullpen help Result: Rotation - [FA], [trade], Porcello, Rodriguez, Kelly Bullpen - Uehara, [FA 8th inn.], Tazawa, [trade], Hembree, Ross +1 (Ogando/Machi/Layne/Wright/?) Why not just keep Buch and add some more prospects?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 2, 2015 13:19:44 GMT -5
I'll go on record as saying there is no way realistically speaking that I want Buchholz' option picked up unless it's a way to deal him to another team that has more luxury tax space than we do (or is a smaller market team that over-pays based on his two option years). In an ordinary circumstance, I agree that I'd want the Red Sox to take a 1yr/$13m gamble on a pitcher of Buchholz' talent, however, with roughly $21M (Sandoval), $22M (Ramirez) and starting next season $20M (Porcello) in basically wasted money, I don't think we have such a luxury. If Dombrowski is somehow able to pull a Dodgers-lite miracle off and get rid of Ramirez and Sandoval's entire contracts, sure, pick up the option on Buchholz, but I don't think that is at all realistic. As such, I'd far rather have the $13m from Buchholz to use toward acquiring David Price than on the half season of good Clay we're likely to receive. I think any situation where we sell off the next 5 years of control of Rodriguez or Owens (or send them back to AAA) is much less desirable than missing out on the small chance that in his (I think) 10th year in MLB that Buchholz finally puts it together. My opinion remains that I think we should pay the money for David Price (by jettisoning Sandoval and Buchholz), acquire a second starter like Carrasco or Quintana, and filling out the rotation with whomever is left between Porcello and Miley (dealing one) with Rodriguez and Owens as the 4th and 5th starters, though I think Rodriguez will be our "number 2" based on performance. This team is in a very similar position to where I think the Cubs were last year (going into this year) and that is why this is the time to spend big on an FA pitcher (like they did with Lester) and cash in some blocked pieces (lets call it Margot, Guerera, Miley and Marrero) to get a number 2 type of starter. But you hold on to all the young MLB players. I don't think a team like the Red Sox can't not pick up that option. 13 million for Clay is still a good deal for us. It took 10 million to get Masterson for one year. Also I don't worry about payroll, after last two years I am expecting to see payroll around 200 million if not more. Dodgers are now approaching 300 million, Red Sox should be at 200 plus million then!!
How can you be so short sighted? Saying Porcello is wasted money is crazy talk. He will be better next year. Sure he might be overpaid, but its not going to be just wasted money. I will go on record saying at worst he's one of the best 4-5 in baseball over the rest of his deal. More likely he is a solid #3. He just had a down year, an outlier year. There are no signs he's an Alan Craig and he just lost it. He has had some really good games this year and some really bad ones.
Same really goes for Hanley and Pablo. They are having outlier years, down years, nothing more. I expect both to bounce back next year. Now that Dave has done what Ben should have and pulled Hanley from OF and gave him a 1B glove, no need to move Hanley. If they both suck again next year, then you move them, not now.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 2, 2015 13:42:52 GMT -5
I'll go on record as saying there is no way realistically speaking that I want Buchholz' option picked up unless it's a way to deal him to another team that has more luxury tax space than we do (or is a smaller market team that over-pays based on his two option years). In an ordinary circumstance, I agree that I'd want the Red Sox to take a 1yr/$13m gamble on a pitcher of Buchholz' talent, however, with roughly $21M (Sandoval), $22M (Ramirez) and starting next season $20M (Porcello) in basically wasted money, I don't think we have such a luxury. If Dombrowski is somehow able to pull a Dodgers-lite miracle off and get rid of Ramirez and Sandoval's entire contracts, sure, pick up the option on Buchholz, but I don't think that is at all realistic. As such, I'd far rather have the $13m from Buchholz to use toward acquiring David Price than on the half season of good Clay we're likely to receive. I think any situation where we sell off the next 5 years of control of Rodriguez or Owens (or send them back to AAA) is much less desirable than missing out on the small chance that in his (I think) 10th year in MLB that Buchholz finally puts it together. My opinion remains that I think we should pay the money for David Price (by jettisoning Sandoval and Buchholz), acquire a second starter like Carrasco or Quintana, and filling out the rotation with whomever is left between Porcello and Miley (dealing one) with Rodriguez and Owens as the 4th and 5th starters, though I think Rodriguez will be our "number 2" based on performance. This team is in a very similar position to where I think the Cubs were last year (going into this year) and that is why this is the time to spend big on an FA pitcher (like they did with Lester) and cash in some blocked pieces (lets call it Margot, Guerera, Miley and Marrero) to get a number 2 type of starter. But you hold on to all the young MLB players. I don't think a team like the Red Sox can't not pick up that option. 13 million for Clay is still a good deal for us. It took 10 million to get Masterson for one year. Also I don't worry about payroll, after last two years I am expecting to see payroll around 200 million if not more. Dodgers are now approaching 300 million, Red Sox should be at 200 plus million then!!
How can you be so short sighted? Saying Porcello is wasted money is crazy talk. He will be better next year. Sure he might be overpaid, but its not going to be just wasted money. I will go on record saying at worst he's one of the best 4-5 in baseball over the rest of his deal. More likely he is a solid #3. He just had a down year, an outlier year. There are no signs he's an Alan Craig and he just lost it. He has had some really good games this year and some really bad ones.
Same really goes for Hanley and Pablo. They are having outlier years, down years, nothing more. I expect both to bounce back next year. Now that Dave has done what Ben should have and pulled Hanley from OF and gave him a 1B glove, no need to move Hanley. If they both suck again next year, then you move them, not now.
I agree with everything until the last part. If they count on him to play 1st next year, there are almost no teams willing to trade until close to the deadline. That's way too long to suffer with another disaster like he was this year. If Papi wasn't hitting like he is now, I might think differently. But we don't need a platoon at DH. They need to figure out if he can play first over the next month and if he looks awful, then they have to dump him, eating any amount of money to get it done this winter.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 2, 2015 13:43:51 GMT -5
If they plan on getting an ace on the market, no chance they can stay under the luxury tax. At that point, you might as well pick up Buchholz's option. Worst case, you are out $. Best case, he pitches like a stud for at least half a season, or he becomes a decent trade piece at the deadline Or they pick up his option and trade him in the offseason. My guess is that DD's plan re: pitching is this: 1. Pick up Buchholz's option 2. Find an ace in free agency 3. Find at least one back-end bullpen arm in free agency 4. Trade Buchholz/Miley/prospects in one or more deals for a #2 starter and/or additional bullpen help Result: Rotation - [FA], [trade], Porcello, Rodriguez, Kelly Bullpen - Uehara, [FA 8th inn.], Tazawa, [trade], Hembree, Ross +1 (Ogando/Machi/Layne/Wright/?) Do you really think that Clays trade value is going to be worth more to this team then his on field value might be? For a big market team a 13 million gamble on a guy that could be an ace/solid 2 for maybe a 100 inning heck maybe 200 if we are really lucky is worth every penny. We have the young starters like Owens ready if he gets injured. Now I think Kelly is someone I would look at trading. Has he turned the corner or is this just a hot streak? Kelly has to have a lot more trade value at this point. Also why trade Miley? He is what he is, a good #4-5 starter. You know what your getting with Miley, you don't really know what you'll get out of Kelly. Miley is on his way to almost 200 innings and over 2 rWARs. While Kelly is going to be worth about 1 WAR. Looking at Miley's contract Extension, that's one move Ben got right this past offseason.
With all of our young pitching depth, we really just need an Ace and this pitching staff looks good to go next year, well the starters anyway. We sure do need upgrades in the pen. Really think we should go after Kimbrel or Chapman. They are most likely the two best closers and bullpen arms in the game and they both seem to be available. Move Uehara to 8th, Taz to 7th inning and bullpen could become elite and a real weapon.
|
|
|