Theo - "We Like Mike"

[redsoxrules]

Rosenthal is wrong more often than he is right. I still chuckle when I think about one of his in field reports during the World Series when he compared the Red Sox offense to the offenses of the teams that the Rockies had played in the playoffs-- the Cubs and Arizona. When the hell did the Rockies play the Cubs?

 

 

yeah rosenthal is an idiot , I remember in game 3 of the WS when he said the rockies were gonna hit dice k hard and fogg was gonna pitch a great game , also in game 6 VS the Guardians , he said fausto was gona dominate and schilling was gona struggle . I never pay attention to him anymore

[example1]

His offense may suffer' date=' but at those prices his bank account will not suffer. His signing with the Yanks would take the Yanks competely out of the running for ARod, and would put the Sox back in the mix. I think John Henry has a man crush on ARod, and will pursue him if the Yanks take Lowell.[/quote']

 

Um, I'm pretty sure that Yanks are already out of the running for ARod. I'm pretty sure that when his opening demands were 350/10yrs, he was telling them he doesn't want to come back. He'll take less to go somewhere else.

 

Put a weight clause in his contract. He has few peers with the bat' date=' and only one is close to his young age --- Pujols, and the Cards have him locked up. Ellsbury is an exciting young player and I expect him to be a star. He will be a Johnny Damon-type star. Cabrera is a Manny-type star. You don't pass on him. Bucholz has pitched a handful of games in the majors. That is not enough to predict stardom. We had another rookie pitcher that threw a no-hitter, but he threw it for the Marlins. Anibal Sanchez and Hanley Ramirez is looking pretty good for the established young star Josh Beckett.. right? Ellsbury i no better than HanRam. Cabrera isn't a young star. He's a young superstar.[/quote']

 

First of all, Anibal Sanchez and Clay Buchholz are completely different prospects. If anything, Clay Buchholz is likely to have Hanley Ramirezesque impact as a rookie, whereas few expected Anibel to be such a lock, particularly given that he had already had TJ surgery. Jacoby Ellsbury is likely to have Hanley Ramirezesque impact as a rookie (given that he plays for a more important team, in a bigger market, and with a better lineup behind him. So, to me, it looks like we're actually talking about trading two Hanley-level impact "prospects" (I laugh at my own use of that term for Buchholz and Ellsbury), plus whoever else you're trying to throw away, for Miguel Cabrera.

 

If Buchholz were the only prospect we had I would think twice, but he's not. He should be untouchable, just as Pedroia and Ellsbury should be. Players such as Lars Anderson, Michael Bowden, Justin Masterson, Jed Lowrie, Brandon Moss, Chris Carter, etc., should be more part of the discussion because they are good prospects and could certainly help a team like the Marlins. Jon Lester is at a low-value point right now, but he should return when people remember he's very young and was recently the Eastern League pitcher of the year.

 

The Red Sox are not dependent on trading for players. They are one of the few teams who can go out and PURCHASE players like Miguel Cabrera, pretty much whenever they are available. Other than the Yankees, there are few teams who can plunk down hundreds of millions of dollars on one player and blow everyone else out of the water. Furthermore, Ellsbury and Buchholz are both Theo type players. One is a naturally athletic power armed pitcher with 2nd and 3rd pitches that are as good as many ace's best pitch. The other is a high OBP, high speed, plus defense CF with tremendous leadership abilities and the tendency to score tons of runs.

 

During 7 years of his prime (age 26-32) Kenny Lofton averaged 18.8 Runs Above Average as a CF. Johnny Damon averaged 7.1 Runs Above Average in the same age period. Damon had a few years that were really not that impressive for a guy in his prime:

 

2001- OAK- .256/.324/.363 in 644 ABs

2003- BOS- .286/.356/.443

 

These numbers--combined with a low OBP--kept him from being seen as the absolute leadoff force that guys like Rickey Henderson and Kenny Lofton were.

 

Damon's best season:

2000-KC- .327/.382/.495, 14 HR, 77 RBI, 136 R, 46 SB (19 RAA)

 

Lofton's best season:

1994, CLE, Age 27-- .349/.412/.536, 12 HR, 57 RBI, 105 R, 60 SB (34 RAA)

 

Don't get too hung up on the averages. Both of them are very high and probably reflect speed and luck. Look at the OBPs. Lofton was a better OBP guy than Damon, and it reflected in his higher runs above average.

 

What's the point?

 

I'm sure you remember that the terror inflicted by Kenny Lofton in the early-mid 1990s far-outweighs anything that Damon ever showed. Lofton, despite his lack of power, was one of the most feared offensive weapons in the game. Ellsbury is that type of player. I see no reason to think that Ellsbury can't put up a regular .285/.370/.430 in the next few years, with close to 50 SBs and plus plus defense.

 

If you assume that Clay Buchholz's K/9 don't diminish too much over the next few years (which they shouldn't given that he'll learn and improve), you're talking about a guy who can get 200 K's each season. This isn't a pipe dream. It is what the statistics, his performance, his coaches and the scouts all agree. Buchholz isn't another version of Lester. He's much, much better.

 

 

If people think it should be a no-brainer to deal buchholz + ellsbury to get cabrera I think you're going to be sorely disappointed when the Sox do not do that. Buchholz + Ellsbury is considerably more valuable than Hanley + Sanchez. Sanchez at the time was the Sox 3rd best pitching prospect (behind Lester and Papelbon, I believe). Buchholz isn't just the Sox best pitching prospect, he's probably the best pitching prospect in all of baseball.

 

Get some perspective fellas!!

[a700hitter]

Example, I think you are getting lost in the details and losing perspective. You spend a lot of time in your post proving that Ellsbury is more like Lofton than Damon and that Lofton is better than Damon. I'll acknowledge that you are right on those points, but my point is that Ellsbury, who I believe will be a star, will not be a superstar of the magnitude of Manny. I think Cabrera is a Manny type player. Manny will be going to the Hall of Fame, and Lofton will not. Let's not forget that part of the reason why Lofton was such a feared weapon was because he had the likes of Manny, Thome and others driving him home.

 

As for the comparison of Bucholz and Sanchez, I wasn't trying to compare the two as prospects. I was just making the point that you can't make too much of Bucholz's handful of starts. Rookie starters rarely make a big impact in a rotation. I can't think of any that have made an ipact recently, and you always run the risk of arm injury before they even learn how to pitch.

 

I'm all for keeping the better prospects and trying to pry away Cabrera with other prospects. If the Marlins are hell bent on Ellsbury and Bucholz for a stud like Cabrera, I'd do it, especially if they don't intend to exercise Manny's options for '09 and '10.

[elsrbueno]

I forget where I saw/read it but some dude speculated that if Lowell signs elsewhere the Red Sox could do the following:

 

1. Move Youk to third

2. Move Ortiz to first

3. Move Manny to DH

4. Play Coco in LF

 

There was a time when I'd have been a proponent of this idea, but given the current circumstances I think it's crap. Why do I post it then? Just figured I'd throw it out there for folks to chew on.

 

Anyway, I seriously doubt Ortiz' legs could stand up to playing first base on a regular basis (he needs knee surgury as it is) and the Sox need to do whatever they can to keep him healthy. Also Youkilis has played very well defensively at first and I don't know how well he'd convert back to third with the glove.

 

I think the Sox can trade Coco and get a cheaper 4th outfielder alternative.

 

If 2004-2005 is any indication Theo will not make an emotional decision regarding Lowell. If the Yankees (or anyone else for that matter) swoop in with what he deems as an unreasonable offer financially, he'll let him go (see Martinez, Pedro and Damon, Johnny).

 

Also keep in mind that Mike Lowell has pretty dramatic home/road splits: .373/.418/.575 at home versus .276/.339/.428 on the road. He's not terrible, but he certainly looks better from playing half his games at Fenway Park, and most of his games in the same lineup as Manny, Ortiz, Pedroia, Youkilis, and other good offensive players. Granted, he'd have both of those variables helping him again if he was with the Sox in '08, but so would another comprable bat....

 

Again, just my $0.02. I hope Theo shows some restraint and doesn't break the bank on this guy-- don't get me wrong he's a class act and a decent ballplayer, but he's not (IMO) irreplaceable.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Example, I think you are getting lost in the details and losing perspective. You spend a lot of time in your post proving that Ellsbury is more like Lofton than Damon and that Lofton is better than Damon. I'll acknowledge that you are right on those points, but my point is that Ellsbury, who I believe will be a star, will not be a superstar of the magnitude of Manny. I think Cabrera is a Manny type player. Manny will be going to the Hall of Fame, and Lofton will not. Let's not forget that part of the reason why Lofton was such a feared weapon was because he had the likes of Manny, Thome and others driving him home.

 

As for the comparison of Bucholz and Sanchez, I wasn't trying to compare the two as prospects. I was just making the point that you can't make too much of Bucholz's handful of starts. Rookie starters rarely make a big impact in a rotation. I can't think of any that have made an ipact recently, and you always run the risk of arm injury before they even learn how to pitch.

 

I'm all for keeping the better prospects and trying to pry away Cabrera with other prospects. If the Marlins are hell bent on Ellsbury and Bucholz for a stud like Cabrera, I'd do it, especially if they don't intend to exercise Manny's options for '09 and '10.

 

I think it would be great if we had a crystal ball and could determine who will become great players. Only thing I can say is this Red Sox front office has done a great job of developing these young players. Players like Papelbon, Pedroia, Youkilis, Ellsbury, Lester played major parts in bringing the Red Sox a World Series Championship in 2007.

 

They have come up through the Red Sox system and I'm sure they feel a sense of pride playing for Boston. The Red Sox team has changed over quite a bit in the last couple seasons.....it would be nice to leave a team intact for once and not bring in players who's work ethic comes into question no matter what kind of "hall of fame" career they may be looking at.

[example1]

Example' date=' I think you are getting lost in the details and losing perspective. You spend a lot of time in your post proving that Ellsbury is more like Lofton than Damon and that Lofton is better than Damon. I'll acknowledge that you are right on those points, but my point is that Ellsbury, who I believe will be a star, will not be a superstar of the magnitude of Manny. I think Cabrera is a Manny type player. Manny will be going to the Hall of Fame, and Lofton will not. Let's not forget that part of the reason why Lofton was such a feared weapon was because he had the likes of Manny, Thome and others driving him home. [/quote']

 

Who says they won't have weapons behind him?

 

Schilling + Lowell + Clement = 31.5m salary in 2007

 

-Schilling: Replaced by Buchholz (star or not, buchholz will give you more IP, K and probably a comparable ERA, probably 13m cheaper, while also gaining a draft pick)

-Clement: Doesn't need replacing

 

-Lowell: We know this leadership group loves A-Rod. Christ, any leadership group would love A-Rod. I don't love the idea of A-Rod rather than Mike Lowell, but it makes sense both financially and statistically, gives you the bat you need to keep both Ellsbury and Buchholz. Locking up A-Rod would ensure that both Buchholz and Ellsbury will remain with the Sox.

 

As for Ellsbury not being a Manny type star. I agree, largely. Manny is a hall-of-fame caliber player and so is Cabrera. That still doesn't add up for me.

 

Let's say we speculate that Buchholz and Ellsbury both end up as A-/B+ caliber players. Regularly in All-Star contention, contention for awards such as gold gloves, cy youngs, etc., but not Hall of Fame worthy, even with a good, healthy career. Kenny Lofton sticks as my comparison for Ellsbury, and as a pitcher I would say, perhaps the level of Roy Oswalt is what one could expect from Buchholz. Think that's overstating it?

 

Minor league career statistics:

Oswalt:

526 IP, (34 IP at AAA)

9.12 K/9

2.51 BB/9

 

Buchholz

285.2 IP (38 IP at AAA)

11.24 K/9

2.44 BB/9

 

Santana

343 IP (49 at AAA, 0 at AA)

9.16 K/9

3.41 BB/9

 

Peavy

437 IP (none above AA)

11.28 K/9

3.17 BB/9

 

In terms of controlling WHIP (which is largely indicative of low ERAs) Buchholz makes more hitters swing and miss, and walks about the same amount as Roy Oswalt did at his age and is better than Santana was in both categories in his minor league career. Peavy struck out about as many at a younger age, but walked a few more (and racked up 437 IP before he was 23!!).

 

So, I think it is reasonable for the Front Office to think about this as:

Kenny Lofton potential + Roy Oswalt potential for Miguel Cabrera potential.

 

I know it's a lot to say "Kenny Lofton" and "Roy Oswalt" with a straight face, but I'm doing it. If Buchholz strikes out as many and walks as many and pitches as often, then there is little reason to think he'll give up a disproportionate amount of runs relative to Oswalt (or any of the other guys I listed above). Take park effects into account, and temper them with the fact that Buchholz will have a top-notch team behind him, and I feel very comfortable saying that Oswalt is a fair projection for Buchholz's career. It will take some work for him to get there, but nothing indicates to me that Clay Buchholz has any inclination to stop kicking ass. He looked pretty comfortable on the mound at Fenway, and got shafted by not being invited to the Playoffs with the big dogs.

 

He's a great pitcher with a chip on his shoulder. Clear the way and let him pitch.

 

s*** man, you accuse me of losing perspective, but don't you realize that if Buchholz played for 80% of other teams he would likely already have at least a season under his belt and would probably be considered right alongside Tim Lincecum, Cole Hamels, Matt Cain, Francisco Carmona, Felix Hernandez and Justin Verlander in terms of being a well developed, young arm that should be untouchable?

 

 

As for the comparison of Bucholz and Sanchez, I wasn't trying to compare the two as prospects. I was just making the point that you can't make too much of Bucholz's handful of starts. Rookie starters rarely make a big impact in a rotation. I can't think of any that have made an impact recently, and you always run the risk of arm injury before they even learn how to pitch.

 

1. The Sox have shown they are hypervigalent about injuries, and will take care of Buchholz. They have the ability, with other starters, to give him a rest if needed.

 

2. You and I both know that rookie starters CAN make a big impact in a rotation but they rarely get the chance to make an impact on a team such as the Sox, which would certainly make bigger news and thus add to the "impact" factor. I would be willing to bet that history affords us numerous examples of rookies who have been more than suitable #3-4 starters and then going on to have tremendous careers.

 

3. But for one example I found in my research, Roy Oswalt went 14-3 in 141 IP for Houston in 2001, with 144 K. He finished 22nd in the MVP race, 5th in the Cy Young voting, and 2nd for Rookie of the Year. So there's an example of one impact rookie SP, but I'd be willing to bet there were considerably more who's impact was received more quietly.

 

I'm all for keeping the better prospects and trying to pry away Cabrera with other prospects. If the Marlins are hell bent on Ellsbury and Bucholz for a stud like Cabrera, I'd do it, especially if they don't intend to exercise Manny's options for '09 and '10.

 

Why not just use the money from Lowell, Schilling and Clement to get A-Rod, thus saving yourself the CF and #2 or #3 SP of the future, and check those guys off your "to do" list too. Getting Cabrera wouldn't give us a CF'er, a position that--if not filled through the draft--will either give you a mediocre replacement (a la Coco Crisp) or an overpaid stud or "semi-stud" the likes of Vernon wells, Torii Hunter, Andruw Jones, Beltran, etc.. Getting Cabrera also would not fill a spot in the rotation that will need to be filled by someone well-above average if this team is going to continue dominating.

 

Remember, the team won this year because of its amazing run differential. They didn't score nearly as many runs as they Yankees but were predicted to win--and DID win--more because they allowed so few while still scoring plenty. Manny was highly mediocre for much of the season this year yet the team was still tremendous. Even if you DON'T replace Manny with A-Rod and simply sign Mike Lowell, I bet the offense scores considerably more with Ellsbury at the top than Crisp.

 

Long story short, I think there are better options than sending the cream of our farm system (cream so good we can taste it already), AGAIN to Florida, for Cabrera. Again, if Florida would do it with just Ellsbury and other prospects that would be fine. But Buchholz stays.

[ksushi]

 

As for the comparison of Bucholz and Sanchez, I wasn't trying to compare the two as prospects. I was just making the point that you can't make too much of Bucholz's handful of starts. Rookie starters rarely make a big impact in a rotation. I can't think of any that have made an ipact recently, and you always run the risk of arm injury before they even learn how to pitch.

 

 

Not to be a jerk and rain on your parade but: Verlander, Gallardo, Lincecum, Josh Johnson (last year), etc. You could make an arguement that Buchholz saved out season giving life to an otherwise lifeless team coming off a brutal sweep. Besides, every good pitcher has to have a rookie campaign. They all come from somewhere, and its very much more cost effective to give the job to a rookie and ride out the rough stretches and wait for it to pay off in the next 5 years that you have the guy. You keep 'em cheap, and use the $$ to better your team where your system lacks depth ( like we will likely need to do at 3B this year and C in the neat future). Sure, sometimes prospects are meant to be dealt, but when you have so much promise in this kid, I can't see us parting with him.

 

Remember all the guys you called "bags of s***" back in the day? Pedroia? Lester? Guys like that. Aren't you glad we have 'em now?

 

You'll be 10X as glad to have Buchholz as soon as next year.

[a700hitter]

-Schilling: Replaced by Buchholz (star or not' date=' buchholz will give you more IP, K and probably a comparable ERA, probably 13m cheaper, while also gaining a draft pick)[/quote']It's a tall order for a rookie to replace even an old Schilling, and Schilling's big game experience is invaluable.

 

-Lowell: We know this leadership group loves A-Rod. Christ' date=' any leadership group would love A-Rod. I don't love the idea of A-Rod rather than Mike Lowell, but it makes sense both financially and statistically, gives you the bat you need to keep both Ellsbury and Buchholz. Locking up A-Rod would ensure that both Buchholz and Ellsbury will remain with the Sox.[/quote']If the Red Sox make the bold move to ARod, it will mean that they really have become the new Yankees, and I am okay with that. I like this winning stuff.

 

-So, I think it is reasonable for the Front Office to think about this as:

Kenny Lofton potential + Roy Oswalt potential for Miguel Cabrera potential.

 

I know it's a lot to say "Kenny Lofton" and "Roy Oswalt" with a straight face, but I'm doing it.

You make very persuasive arguments about the potential of Ellsbury and Bucholz and I can definitely see that with regard to Ellsbury. I haven't seen enough of Bucholz yet. One thing that doesn't add up in this equation is that you wouldn't be getting back Miguel Cabrera potential. He is achieving the potential. He is at Superstar level already. You have to give up a lot of potential to get an established star.

-3. But for one example I found in my research' date=' Roy Oswalt went 14-3 in 141 IP for Houston in 2001, with 144 K. He finished 22nd in the MVP race, 5th in the Cy Young voting, and 2nd for Rookie of the Year. So there's an example of one impact rookie SP, but I'd be willing to bet there were considerably more who's impact was received more quietly.[/quote'] The fact that a thorough guy like you had to go back to 2001 to find an example of a rookie pitcher with a big impact shows how rare it is.

 

 

Long story short' date=' I think there are better options than sending the cream of our farm system (cream so good we can taste it already), AGAIN to Florida, for Cabrera. Again, if Florida would do it with just Ellsbury and other prospects that would be fine. But Buchholz stays.[/quote']If they sign ARod or pick up Manny's options, I would agree that they really don't need Miggy and should hold onto Ellsbury and Bucholz.

[example1]

It's a tall order for a rookie to replace even an old Schilling' date=' and Schilling's big game experience is invaluable.[/quote']

 

You've been playing the tall order card for a long time now with respect to our rookies. It was a tall order for Pedroia to be "given the starting job" (though you agreed that he was good), it was a tall order to take a risk on Matsuzaka, because he "has not thrown a major league pitch". Now it's a tall order for a pitcher who routinely makes hitters (good hitters, mind you, AA and AAA and MLB) swing and miss and look bad. Pitchers who are that good pick up the name "gunslinger" for a reason. They become humans with right-arm-weapons instead of a man with a ball. Beckett is that way. Clemens was that way. Everyone who has seen him or coached him thinks Buchholz is that way. He sure as hell looks that way when I've seen him pitch. He's cocky, but his curveball will be as good as Beckett's next year (not necessarily as effective, but the movement and impact when thrown correctly will be as good), and his changeup will be easily, EASILY the best on the team (unless Matsuzaka figures out how to use his) and one of the best in the league. Didn't you watch the games Buchholz pitched and hear the announcers gasp when he threw it? It was like a Bugs Bunny pitch man! I digress...

 

If the Red Sox make the bold move to ARod, it will mean that they really have become the new Yankees, and I am okay with that. I like this winning stuff.

 

While I agree with you, I think the point MUST be made that the Sox having a payroll leash somewhere in the 170m area and still being able to acquire A-Rod by letting 3 other players go, is very different from overpaying for Mike Lowell for 5 seasons. Barred from the A-Rod sweepstakes they go after the 2nd best guy and, presumably, blow everyone else out of the water with a 5 year deal. To me THAT is classic Yankees.

 

I love Lowell, but 5 years? Hmmm. The Sox spend close to Yankee's money but have made better moves and have a better philosophy. They make tough decisions and have sound reasons for their decisions. They resemble the Yankees in payroll and (recent) success, not much else.

 

You make very persuasive arguments about the potential of Ellsbury and Bucholz and I can definitely see that with regard to Ellsbury. I haven't seen enough of Bucholz yet. One thing that doesn't add up in this equation is that you wouldn't be getting back Miguel Cabrera potential. He is achieving the potential. He is at Superstar level already. You have to give up a lot of potential to get an established star.

 

In a discussion where every little bit of production will ultimately matter, you have to remember that Cabrera's past production simply does not matter to this deal. His production after he gets to Boston is all that matters, and in that sense he is just like anyone else. His production has been very consistent in FLA and obviously he's a tremendous talent, but it is all just potential. Cabrera could realistically be only 95% as effective against better pitching/competition, which would put him closer to that "really good player not hall of famer" category.

 

The fact that a thorough guy like you had to go back to 2001 to find an example of a rookie pitcher with a big impact shows how rare it is.

 

Actually, the fact that Roy Oswalt was one of the first two or three pitchers I looked at to compare to Buchholz and his minor league numbers were worse was pretty telling. As was the fact that Oswalt did so well as a rookie was simply something I noticed when looking at his stats for the minor league success was also telling. So back at ya!

 

If they sign ARod or pick up Manny's options, I would agree that they really don't need Miggy and should hold onto Ellsbury and Bucholz.

 

Fair enough.

[a700hitter]

You've been playing the tall order card for a long time now with respect to our rookies. It was a tall order for Pedroia to be "given the starting job" (though you agreed that he was good)' date=' it was a tall order to take a risk on Matsuzaka, because he "has not thrown a major league pitch". Now it's a tall order for a pitcher who routinely makes hitters (good hitters, mind you, AA and AAA and MLB) swing and miss and look bad. Pitchers who are that good pick up the name "gunslinger" for a reason. They become humans with right-arm-weapons instead of a man with a ball. Beckett is that way. Clemens was that way. [/quote']I never really considered Matsuzaka to be a rookie, so I don't remember making that statement about him. As for Clemens, he came up in 84 and he did not make a major impact until 86 and after a shoulder injury

 

In a discussion where every little bit of production will ultimately matter' date=' you have to remember that Cabrera's past production simply does not matter to this deal. His production after he gets to Boston is all that matters, and in that sense he is just like anyone else. His production has been very consistent in FLA and obviously he's a tremendous talent, but it is all just potential. Cabrera could realistically be only 95% as effective against better pitching/competition, which would put him closer to that "really good player not hall of famer" category. [/quote']I disagree with this concept. I don't think there is much of a quality gap, if any, between AL and NL pitching. I think Cabrera has established himself, so his potential is no longer in question.

[example1]

I never really considered Matsuzaka to be a rookie' date=' so I don't remember making that statement about him. As for Clemens, he came up in 84 and he did not make a major impact until 86 and after a shoulder injury. [/quote']

 

The "tall order" card has applied to almost all players who are either rookies or who are making a significant transition to the Sox. For you, it is almost impossible for any rookie to have a better projection than any current Major League player, which indicates to me that you see a huge distinction between a players designation of MLB vs AAA. While I agree that the difference in overall talent is vast, I pointed out that Buchholz (and Ellsbury, now that I think about it) would both have at least a year of major league experience under their belt if they played for a lesser franchise. Their lack of experience means that they've taken more bumps in less public places and likely learned from those experiences. They are both more than major league ready. Again, you have seen Clay Buchholz throw a major league no-hitter and beat the Angels, right? He won't throw no-hitters every day, but his pitches and command are well above average for his age, as indicated by his comfortable whiffing of Garrett Anderson on three straight changeups.

 

I disagree with this concept. I don't think there is much of a quality gap, if any, between AL and NL pitching. I think Cabrera has established himself, so his potential is no longer in question.

 

The concept in question isn't whether or not Cabrera will be good. The concept is that previous success is a predictor of future success and players with the statistics of Ellsbury and Buchholz tend to do very well. Add to that the fact that players who scouts see who look like Ellsbury and Buchholz tend to do very well. Cabrera would still have to perform, just like Ellsbury and Buchholz will and in that sense, for the trade to make sense, he will have to live up to his potential.

 

If you're sold on Ellsbury you should be sold even more on Buchholz as he has been more dominant relative to other players since he was drafted.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

I never really considered Matsuzaka to be a rookie, so I don't remember making that statement about him. As for Clemens, he came up in 84 and he did not make a major impact until 86 and after a shoulder injury

 

I disagree with this concept. I don't think there is much of a quality gap, if any, between AL and NL pitching. I think Cabrera has established himself, so his potential is no longer in question.

 

I just want to make the point that there would be JUST as many questions about Miguel Cabrera coming to Boston than Buchholz pitching a full season in the rotation.

 

Miguel Cabrera would not be batting 3rd or 4th which could have an impact. He would have to change positions which can sometimes have an impact on a player offensively (I don't know why but it does). Not to mention the potential JD Drew factor. I think Cabrera is a better hitter than Drew but if he drops his average below .300 and hits under 30 HRs with the Red Sox we would be pretty disappointed.

[a700hitter]

The concept in question isn't whether or not Cabrera will be good. The concept is that previous success is a predictor of future success and players with the statistics of Ellsbury and Buchholz tend to do very well. Add to that the fact that players who scouts see who look like Ellsbury and Buchholz tend to do very well. Cabrera would still have to perform' date=' just like Ellsbury and Buchholz will and in that sense, for the trade to make sense, he will have to live up to his potential.[/quote']I agree that Ellsbury will do very well. In fact, I think he will be a star. I think Bucholz should also do very well, although it takes pitchers a few years in the majors to learn how to pitch. It would be very, very rare for a pitcher to dominate in his first couple of years. It took Josh Beckett, who had 4 years of MLB experience, a whole year in the AL to figure it out and learn how to pitch in a dominant way. However, if you are looking to land a young(emphasis added) superstar with HOF potential, you have to at least give up a couple of kids with star potential. If we can get the big right handed bat elsewhere(e.g., ARod or keeping Manny), we can keep these kids and that would be my preference. If Arod and Manny go elsewhere, I can't think of a better available RH hitter to fill the need than Miggy Cabrera. If we got him, I'd sign him for 8 years like we signed Manny. The guy is an offensive machine.

[ORS]

Don't see it. There are very few questions about this...

 

[table]Age|AB|HR|BA|OBP|SLG

20|314|12|.268|.325|.468

21|603|33|.294|.366|.512

22|613|33|.323|.385|.561

23|576|26|.339|.430|.568

24|588|34|.320|.401|.565[/table]

 

There's really only one question, and it's about his work ethic with his weight gain from 20-24. There's two ways to approach it. Buy now or wait a year. He'll put up a monster year either way, but if he comes into camp fit, there will be no questions, and this year's steep price will become astronomical. The time to act is now, IMO.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

There's really only one question' date=' and it's about his work ethic with his weight gain from 20-24.[/quote']

 

Thats all the Red Sox front office needs to be turned off. They like players who can contribute in a number of ways. Miguel Cabrera offers nothing on the defensive side and thats an issue. Certainly he provides some very nice numbers at the plate but they like players who contribute on both sides. My gut tells me they would rather have Mike Lowell and Kevin Youkilis on the corners being able to play gold-glove caliber defense while being OBP machines. Certainly you don't question either of those players work ethic.

[TheKilo]

I just want to make the point that there would be JUST as many questions about Miguel Cabrera coming to Boston than Buchholz pitching a full season in the rotation.

 

Miguel Cabrera would not be batting 3rd or 4th which could have an impact. He would have to change positions which can sometimes have an impact on a player offensively (I don't know why but it does). Not to mention the potential JD Drew factor. I think Cabrera is a better hitter than Drew but if he drops his average below .300 and hits under 30 HRs with the Red Sox we would be pretty disappointed.

 

What the f*** is a JD Drew factor?

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

What the f*** is a JD Drew factor?

 

Players who perform well on other teams, make the transition to Boston and don't produce the way you assume they should. Miguel Cabrera is a different player with a much more dangerous bat but that does not mean he can't come into Boston and struggle.

[example1]

I agree that Ellsbury will do very well. In fact' date=' I think he will be a star. I think Bucholz should also do very well, although it takes pitchers a few years in the majors to learn how to pitch. [/quote']

 

Which should indicate that Buchholz's upside is more than an average major league starter. Given that Buchholz has a no-hitter under his belt and 9 K/IP in his short 22 IP, I guess it can only go up from there. His no-hitter was likely a fluke (as most no-nos are) but his dominance was not. He commanded and changed speed very well.

 

It would be very, very rare for a pitcher to dominate in his first couple of years. It took Josh Beckett, who had 4 years of MLB experience, a whole year in the AL to figure it out and learn how to pitch in a dominant way.

 

Which is why it would be really nice to spend the other $169,625,000 from this teams' payroll on other players who can contribute and keep Buchholz from having to be an ACE as soon as he enters the league.

 

That said, were you disappointed that neither Pedroia or Ellsbury dominated this year? Pedroia "only" had one of the best 2B seasons in baseball this year...

 

 

However, if you are looking to land a young(emphasis added) superstar with HOF potential, you have to at least give up a couple of kids with star potential.

 

Obviously. But that doesn't mean you just give any star. Not all prospects are equal.

 

If we can get the big right handed bat elsewhere(e.g., ARod or keeping Manny), we can keep these kids and that would be my preference. If Arod and Manny go elsewhere, I can't think of a better available RH hitter to fill the need than Miggy Cabrera. If we got him, I'd sign him for 8 years like we signed Manny. The guy is an offensive machine.

 

I agree that Cabrera would be the most Manny-like RH replacement out there (not counting A-Rod) and the idea of that makes me happy. But I see no reason to be fleeced by the Marlins in order to get him...

 

Personally, I think Adam Dunn + Jacoby Ellsbury + Clay Buchholz will be more valuable to a team than Miguel Cabrera when they are all playing full seasons. I think MANY players + Ellsbury + Buchholz are more valuable than Cabrera.

 

Why trade a guy who is 2 years from being an ace, and an overly mature team leader with high OBP and the best speed Boston has seen in a few years when it isn't necessary? Why not just resign Manny or look for ANY other option when the odds are so uneaven.

 

Again, if you can get him for Ellsbury + Bowden then I would probably take it, but Buchholz could be as valuable to the Red Sox as Cabrera is, given that Boston needs a SP and believes they have one.

 

 

Finally, I just don't see Theo making a move like that. He was not the one who pulled the trigger on the Lowell and Beckett deal, and was advocating that they hold onto their prospects. Ellsbury + Buchholz + the Red Sox kitchen sink (i.e., any other player you would throw into this 'no brainer') for Cabrera is a no-brainer for the Marlins. Cost controlled, high upside, MLB ready talent for overweight, bored 3B/COF who will quickly cost too much for the Marlins to keep. No brainer.

 

I'm not worried about Cabrera's production. He's a tremendous hitter and his 120 RBI should be more like 130-140 if he had the Sox offense and Fenway to knock the ball around in. I simply believe that Buchholz and Ellsbury will both be stars and by a few months into next season it will obviously have been too much to trade both for Miggy.

[example1]

Players who perform well on other teams' date=' make the transition to Boston and don't produce the way you assume they should. Miguel Cabrera is a different player with a much more dangerous bat but that does not mean he can't come into Boston and struggle.[/quote']

 

Personally, I think Cabrera is one of the least likely to come into Boston and be a complete flop. For all my advocacy against an Ellsbury + Buchholz for Cabrera move, it is not because I doubt his ability to produce and I would be pretty happy with the Red Sox either way. If theo pulled the trigger he would likely explain it in a way that makes sense to me, though I don't foresee him dealing both of those guys so I'm not too worried about his need for an explanation.

 

Manny and Cabrera are pretty comparable. The best historical comparison for Miguel Cabrera by age is Hank Aaron, for each of Cabrera's 4 years in the league. That's pretty impressive. A young hammering hank.

[a700hitter]

Personally, I think Adam Dunn + Jacoby Ellsbury + Clay Buchholz will be more valuable to a team than Miguel Cabrera when they are all playing full seasons. I think MANY players + Ellsbury + Buchholz are more valuable than Cabrera.

After watching Manny and Ortiz since 2003, I am a firm believer that having a lefty and righty superstar MVP caliber player in the same lineup have made good players into above average players and above average players into stars. Look at the last two years from Lowell. Pitchers had no choice but to throw him strikes. He thrive the most when hitting in the 5 hole. I also believe that Youkilis and Pedroia have benefitted from pitchers coming right at them because of Manny and Ortiz hitting behind them. I am not saying that these guys are not good. They are really good, but hitting in a lineup with Manny and Ortiz makes them much better. Cabrera would have the same effect.

[example1]

Back on target a bit more:

 

Lowell would be the good Karma, good clubhouse signing. However, if the Yankees are realistically going to offer 5 years at 12 million nobody could blame Lowell or the Red Sox for not matching it.

 

If the Sox used the 31.5m they save from Clement, Schilling and Lowell for A-Rod, then they probably keep Manny for next year (it won't hurt their payroll compared to this year to do so). That means:

 

Ellsbury

Pedroia

Rodriguez

Ortiz

Ramirez

Drew

Youkilis

Varitek

Lugo

 

Beckett

Matsuzaka

Wakefield

Lester

Buchholz

 

It is a realistic possibility for sure, and although I doubt it will happen one can't help but salivate a little bit at the thought of that lineup, with that pitching staff, for the same price as we paid this year.

 

Hell, moving Lugo's salary instead of Lowell's, and getting both Lowell and A-Rod would be the ultimate victory, but I don't see that happening unless they can get someone to swallow Lugo's contract AND they are absolutely sure that A-Rod can play SS. Given how difficult it would be to be absolutely sure, I think the probability of this scenario is pretty low. If A-Rod failed at SS they would be stuck with Lowell and A-Rod as 3B. I suppose they could trade Youkilis and move Lowell to 1B... but that is a long ways off...

 

Does A-Rod have ANY outfield ability?

[example1]

After watching Manny and Ortiz since 2003' date=' I am a firm believer that having a lefty and righty superstar MVP caliber player in the same lineup have made good players into above average players and above average players into stars. Look at the last two years from Lowell. Pitchers had no choice but to throw him strikes. He thrive the most when hitting in the 5 hole. I also believe that Youkilis and Pedroia have benefitted from pitchers coming right at them because of Manny and Ortiz hitting behind them. I am not saying that these guys are not good. They are really good, but hitting in a lineup with Manny and Ortiz makes them much better. Cabrera would have the same effect.[/quote']

 

Of course it would. Furthermore, adding Cabrera to a lineup with Ortiz and Manny would give that positive effect to HIM, thus giving him more hittable pitches the same way Ortiz gets them because of Manny. That all makes sense.

 

Ortiz and Manny are not great solely because of their physical skills though. Their skills are great, and they put up numbers that are unbelievable. However, each and every season SOMEONE else in baseball has put up similar numbers to both Ortiz and Manny. What makes them unbelievable is that neither of them ever seems to change his approach at the plate, working pitchers whether it is the 1st inning, the 5th inning or the 9th with the best reliever on the mound. They both have a head and an approach that makes them more than just stars and allows them to carry a team by modeling their approach.

 

You talked about Youkilis and Pedroia. These are guys who both seem to have either inherited the same skill or were drafted because they had it. Ellsbury is the same way. Pedroia is a better fielding, better contact version of Youkilis; Ellsbury is the faster version of Pedroia. They have Jed Lowrie waiting and he too is a patient, contact hitter who makes pitchers work. A lineup chock-full of guys like that will be an absolute terror to face, particularly when cemented with an Ortiz and Ramirez, Ortiz and Cabrera, or Ortiz and A-Rod core. Particularly when a number of those players are making a minimum salary for a few years. If you get A-Rod or keep Manny, thus keeping Ellsbury and Buchholz, you also save the money you would otherwise need to spend on a CF and SP, and put it--along with other funds--toward the 08 FA pitching class if necessary (Sabathia, Penny, Peavy, Santana, Bonderman, etc.,). The amount of flexibility they will retain by keeping their two top prospects cannot be overestimated.

[a700hitter]

You make excellent points. The 2008 FA pitching class could be a rich one if teams don't re-sign their guys.

[Varitek33]

If A-Rod came to Boston' date=' which I am not openly rooting for, I would like to think he'd play short.[/quote']

 

The odds of this actually happening though are low, because of Lugo...

[Varitek33]

I seriously like our chances if we and the Yanks exchange third baseman.

 

It really wouldn't be a bad trade. The only problem is pretending to like A-rod as a Red sox fan.

[TheKilo]

Sources familiar with the Lowell negotiations indicate that the popular third baseman - who officially filed for free agency yesterday - would need a third year guaranteed, and if he gets it, he's likely to take a hometown discount.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/11/07/earning_his_keep/

 

3 years, $12-14 million? Sign me up.

[BSN07]

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/11/07/earning_his_keep/

 

3 years, $12-14 million? Sign me up.

 

3 yrs? I'll take that. The only reason for me not wanting Lowell back at all costs was I didn't want the club to sign him for 5 yrs. i was expecting a 4 yr deal to be honest, 3 is best csec scenarion for the Sox.

[MANNYHOF24]

I would do 3-40 million in a heartbeat for Lowell. With how inflated the market has gotten, that would be a pretty sweet deal.

[redsoxrules]

If lowell signs , dosent that still leave room for 30 million to spend before they hit the luxury tax?

[BoSox21]

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/11/07/earning_his_keep/

 

3 years, $12-14 million? Sign me up.

 

I'm really starting to get the feeling that a new deal for Lowell is imminent, especially with Yankee officials conceeding Lowell to the Sox