Is the actual rotation the worst in the last 10 Y?

[MJantomaso]

Isn't Cliff Lee like, 90?

[User Name?]

If the results are there, does it matter if he is?

[sk7326]

No thanks on Ball or Rodriguez. But i see where you're coming from.

Rodriguez would hurt me too - but he is decidedly further away from the bigs than Owens or Barnes or Johnson. He showed some real improvement and serious skills - hence his high ranking. But you can make a case for Lee that the O's made for getting Miller (and Lee is obviously a better pitcher) ... if the kid is 2 years away in your heart (along with the added risk of pitchers generally healthwise), and you can help the team now, you have to consider it. While I am more amenable to Rodriguez moving than Margot and Devers, the conundrum is the similar - a guy whose potential you love but don't see making a contribution in the near term.

[User Name?]

Yeah i'd do my best to not move position players for pitchers given the current run-suppressing environment.

[a700hitter]

Lee scares me off. If it is just a question of money... maybe? Amaro should be happy just to off-load his contract.

[mvp 78]

@PeteAbe: Typo there. Farrell was saying out of 1400 innings or so they need to get, the hope is starters get 800.

[mvp 78]

@nickcafardo: Clay Buchholz said it would be an honor to be Opening Day starter.

The words you're looking for is "mistake."

[User Name?]

Buchholz is not the type to thrive under the pressure of increased expectations. I hope he proves me wrong.

[Palodios]

I am certain that it is a coincidence, but Buchholz has done well when put into the "leader of the staff" position in the past.

2010, Beckett and Lackey have awful years, Buchholz has his career best year.
2012, Beckett gets traded, Buchholz turns to a lights out starter afterwards.
2013, Lester and Lackey are coming off mediocre/injured years years, and there is pressure to succeed -- he starts the season lights out.

He was Beckett's caddy for so many years, and Lester's sidekick. Who knows, maybe it will be good for him to take over the staff.

[Bellhorn04]

I like Cliff Lee too. But if the Sox were unwilling to give Shields 75 million for 4 years, I can't see them giving up a prospect and 37.5-50 million for one or two years of Lee.

[User Name?]

Except that that was the Sox' M.O when constructing their WS winning 2013 roster. Less years, more money. I believe they would bite if the prospect cost was low enough, meaning money would not be their issue.

[a700hitter]

I am certain that it is a coincidence, but Buchholz has done well when put into the "leader of the staff" position in the past.

2010, Beckett and Lackey have awful years, Buchholz has his career best year.
2012, Beckett gets traded, Buchholz turns to a lights out starter afterwards.
2013, Lester and Lackey are coming off mediocre/injured years years, and there is pressure to succeed -- he starts the season lights out.

He was Beckett's caddy for so many years, and Lester's sidekick. Who knows, maybe it will be good for him to take over the staff.

He's also in a contract year.

[iortiz]

I like Cliff Lee too. But if the Sox were unwilling to give Shields 75 million for 4 years, I can't see them giving up a prospect and 37.5-50 million for one or two years of Lee.

... exactly.

I wouldn't give up a top prospect for an old horse who would cost u money as well. In that case I would have signed Shields in the first place as you said.

[mvp 78]

As Lee gets older and older, I don't see the point in bringing him in.

[User Name?]

In what universe would Lee cost a top prospect, and how is a one year deal (albeit at a possibly very high price) comparable to a 4-year deal? That makes no sense.