Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[bsox0407]

The premise is erroneous. Either Bard or Buchholz could be a piece in a trade to bring in a big time player like Felix or Adrian Gonzalez that would improve the team. Trading the others would not improve the team. How don't you get that?

 

ARe we a better team with Buchholz or Bard? yes. If we had Felix or Gonzo we would be better but without any of them we would not be as good.

[BSN07]

That "group" wasn't put together based on what they have accomplished. It was put together based on the Red Sox valuing him highly enough that they slot him comfortably into a rotation spot and don't plan on having to improve his spot with a FA.

 

The premise is erroneous. Either Bard or Buchholz could be a piece in a trade to bring in a big time player like Felix or Adrian Gonzalez that would improve the team. Trading the others would not improve the team. How don't you get that?

 

Two different arguments.

[a700hitter]

ARe we a better team with Buchholz or Bard? yes. If we had Felix or Gonzo we would be better but without any of them we would not be as good.

Still a faulty premise. Are you saying that we would not be as good with a 23 man roster if Buchholz or bard was removed? I'd agree with that. Or are you saying that we couldn't replace Bard and Buchholz from within the organization and improve the team? I'd agree with that too. However, I think if we traded either or both of them, we could get back players that would improve the team.

[bsox0407]

Still a faulty premise. Are you saying that we would not be as good with a 23 man roster if Buchholz or bard was removed? I'd agree with that. Or are you saying that we couldn't replace Bard and Buchholz from within the organization and improve the team? I'd agree with that too. However' date=' I think if we traded either or both of them, we could get back players that would improve the team.[/quote']

 

the first two. the red sox need to keep at least one of them in a trade. we are a better team if we keep them both and not get the other two players. but our bullpen would take a big hit if the sox had to give up bard in a trade for Gonzo.

[a700hitter]

the first two. the red sox need to keep at least one of them in a trade. we are a better team if we keep them both and not get the other two players. but our bullpen would take a big hit if the sox had to give up bard in a trade for Gonzo.

That would be more than offset by the improvement with Gonzalez. Buchholz and Bard are still major trading chips. They would only be traded for a big impact player(s), but they are still chips. Lester, Ellsbury, Papelbon and Pedroia are not trading chips at this point.

[BSN07]

Still a faulty premise. Are you saying that we would not be as good with a 23 man roster if Buchholz or bard was removed? I'd agree with that. Or are you saying that we couldn't replace Bard and Buchholz from within the organization and improve the team? I'd agree with that too. However' date=' I think if we traded either or both of them, we could get back players that would improve the team.[/quote']

 

No that's not it at all. I'm saying that Buchholz and Bard are either good enough, young enough, cheap enough or all of the above, that the team does not have to look to replace them with veteran FA's. Replace being the key word. The same way that I feel Beckett, Lester, Pedroia, Youk, Ellsbury, Papelbon, don't need to be replaced by veteran FA's.

[BSN07]

That would be more than offset by the improvement with Gonzalez. Buchholz and Bard are still major trading chips. They would only be traded for a big impact player(s)' date=' but they are still chips. Lester, Ellsbury, Papelbon and Pedroia are not trading chips at this point.[/quote']

 

Felix is the only player I would put Buchholz in a package for. Outside of that, Buchholz should be penciled into the starting rotation from here on out.

 

Bard however unlikely, is probably more likely to get traded the Buchholz.

[a700hitter]

Felix is the only player I would put Buchholz in a package for. Outside of that, Buchholz should be penciled into the starting rotation from here on out.

 

Bard however unlikely, is probably more likely to get traded the Buchholz.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Buchholz in a package for Gonzalez.

[Dojji]

I would. that would be unbelievably stupid, and would weaken our rotation -- the definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[a700hitter]

I would. that would be unbelievably stupid' date=' and would weaken our rotation -- the definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul.[/quote']They'd have to sign Lackey to fill his spot, or make another trade for to get Halladay.

[Dojji]

Which means you're out that value too, which has to be added to the cost of moving Buchholz. Especially when you can add either of those two anyway.

 

Again, stupid.

[a700hitter]

Which means you're out that value too, which has to be added to the cost of moving Buchholz. Especially when you can add either of those two anyway.

 

Again, stupid.

I'm not advocting trading Buchholz, but I am acknowledging his status as trading chip. I am advocating getting a stud like Gonzalez, and I am acknowledging that it might cost Buchholz. So if the difference between getting Gonzalez is Buchholz, I guess you would walk away.

[example1]

The premise is erroneous. Either Bard or Buchholz could be a piece in a trade to bring in a big time player like Felix or Adrian Gonzalez that would improve the team. Trading the others would not improve the team. How don't you get that?

 

And Pedroia could be upgraded for Utley, Lester for Lincecum, etc., The point is that nobody is spending any time actively looking to upgrade those positions. AS I SAID, if a deal came along that allowed them to be upgraded, they might listen (it isn't that they are un-upgradeable) it's just that they are above average and of the caliber for a WS team to have playing every day.

 

Buchholz is an option for a trade because he is COVETED, not because he sucks. Yes, if Buchholz could be dealt for former Cy Young winner (and perennial Cy Young candidate) Halliday or possibly the best young pitcher in baseball (Felix) then the Sox might bite. Otherwise, they're not going to spend any time looking to upgrade that position. Buchholz is good enough to be one of the 5 pitchers on the Red Sox. The only people debating that are the "I haven't seen it yet" crowd like you and Gom. Honestly, it's foolish.

[example1]

This is funny. Believe the hype fellas. I don't. I don't buy it until they make it here.

 

Right, which is why you should not be consulted in discussions involving prospect moves.

 

Buchholz? Not proven yet. Chamberlain? Not yet. Hughes? Million dollar arm, ten cent brain. I'm not saying these players can't be All-Stars. I'm just saying they haven't arrived yet, according to me.

 

Stephen Strasburg hasn't proven anything yet either. Should the Nationals be out there overpaying for 5 SPs for the next 10 years? Or would it be safe for them to believe that Strasburg will eventually be in their rotation?

 

Lester's made it. So has Youk and Pedroia. Bard? Nope. Remember, this is me. I value consistency.

 

You value not having to rely on faith that players will be good. That's not the way that any FO other than the Yankees operates, and even they have more faith in their young players than you do. You and a700 have an entirely unrealistic expectation about how teams should be managed.

 

The true stupidity here is that you guys continue to believe in what you haven't seen yet.

 

The true stupidity here is that by your reasoning you would value an aging Juan Gonzalez over a rookie Albert Pujols or Mickey Mantle because Juan Gone has proven he could do it in the big leagues. It's exactly the same thing.

 

In the Santana deal to Boston that was proposed, the great majority of you wanted to give up Lester instead of Buchholz. Remember? How would that have turned out? Lester's been every bit as good as Johan, and he's younger and healthier at this point.

 

Right, and the Red Sox were right not to do it. YOU certainly weren't saying that Lester was going to be really good. If anything this proves that the Red Sox know better what they should do with their youngest players. They were right with Lester and Papelbon, Pedroia, Ellsbury, etc., Now they are holding onto Buchholz (except perhaps in a deal for Halladay or Felix or Gonzalez) and they are saying that Kelly and Westmoreland are off limits. Those of us who support that perspective are apparently idiots because these guys aren't proven yet. You want it both ways but you end up just looking wishy-washy and argumentative.

 

As for teams getting smarter...there are always some s*** teams. I don't know about the minors, admittedly, but the Jays have turned out some good young pitching in recent years, the Rays have been phenomenal, and the Orioles have some solid arms and Wieters.

 

Which young pitchers are you talking about?

 

I think baseball prospects are the equivalent of spring training. Everyone has a shot, everyone can dream.

 

Jesus, really? The equivalent of spring training?

 

...and most of you were burying Pedroia when he couldn't hit for s*** when he came up,

 

Not this guy...

 

most of you were touting Buchholz as the next dominant pitcher, while willing to trade Lester, Ellsbury was a Henderson-like clone, Joba was the next Mariano or Clemens [sans steroids], Hughes was a four pitch marvel, Hansen was a closer in waiting, ditto Bard...so excuse me if I say most of you have been more miss than hit, yet you tout yourself as experts. Admittedly, the jury is still out on a lot of these guys.

 

Most of the baseball world was touting Buchholz and Hughes. Clearly most of them still think highly of both. The Sox passed on Joba out of concerns for his longterm durability. I'd love you to show me where anyone compared Ellsbury to Rickey Henderson (other than basestealing). Hansen actually WAS a closer in waiting (nobody said he was the actual closer). Bard has a plus, plus arm and went form being ineffective in the minors to being very, very good with some adjustments. Nobody is saying he's Mariano so stop being dumb.

 

Most of you know that I put more faith in veterans than in prospects. How do things change if the Yankees get Chapman? Or the Red Sox. Too many variables. The best prospect in 2012 in the AL East may not have even been drafted yet.

 

Nobody says the Sox have the best prospect in the AL East. They just reasonably believe that they will have a big core of prospects by 2012 and there's reason to believe this is the case.

 

I'm not saying that the Red Sox prospects are s***, but most of you can't read and take it that way. I'm saying the talent level between the Sox prospects and the rest of the AL East probably won't be as big a gap as you guys want to believe in 2012 and beyond.

 

And nobody is saying that the Sox will be carried exclusively by their prospects. That would be a stupid thing to say.

[a700hitter]

And Pedroia could be upgraded for Utley' date=' Lester for Lincecum, etc., The point is that nobody is spending any time actively looking to upgrade those positions. AS I SAID, if a deal came along that allowed them to be upgraded, they might listen (it isn't that they are un-upgradeable) it's just that they are above average and of the caliber for a WS team to have playing every day. [/quote'] Really? What would be the reason to make those trades? That's just ridiculous. They're all young, so none of the teams involved would be doing it to get younger. I don't see the possibility or the necessity of a salary dump by any of those teams. Why would such a trade of established All Stars, Cy Young Award winners and MVP's be made? Those players are for all intents and purposes "un-upgradeable." Again this is a ridiculous example.

 

Buchholz is an option for a trade because he is COVETED' date=' not because he sucks. Yes, if Buchholz could be dealt for former Cy Young winner (and perennial Cy Young candidate) Halliday or possibly the best young pitcher in baseball (Felix) then the Sox might bite. Otherwise, they're not going to spend any time looking to upgrade that position. Buchholz is good enough to be one of the 5 pitchers on the Red Sox. The only people debating that are the "I haven't seen it yet" crowd like you and Gom. Honestly, it's foolish.[/quote'] I never said that they would trade Buchholz because he "sucked". He would be traded, because unlike the other guys, he is still a prospect and not an established star. He has less value than Lester, because Lester has proved himself. Whoever takes him in a trade would be trading to get his potential and cheap cost, and they would most likely get other players in addition to Buchholz, because they are not going to take a prospect with potential straight up for a star.

[example1]

Really? What would be the reason to make those trades? That's just ridiculous. They're all young' date=' so none of the teams involved would be doing it to get younger. I don't see the possibility or the necessity of a salary dump by any of those teams. Why would such a trade of established All Stars, Cy Young Award winners and MVP's be made? Those players are for all intents and purposes "un-upgradeable." Again this is a ridiculous example. [/quote']

 

My point wasn't that those trades would be made. My point was that even players who you may consider really good could be upgraded.

 

It's a spectrum, just about every player can be upgraded, even if they are seen as really good. Buchholz is further toward the "hard to upgrade" side of things than most other players are--even most players on most other teams. I know that's hard to understand or comprehend because you haven't given him your stamp of approval yet.

 

Pedroia and Lester are even further down the scale toward "hard to upgrade" but they are still upgradable. Hanley Ramirez? Not really possible to upgrade him with one player.

 

Notice that nobody is claiming that Tazawa or Bowden can be #1 or #2 starters. Only Buchholz and possibly Kelly. It isn't indiscriminate prospect hyping, just prospect hyping of players who have been widely recognized as having elite stuff. Buchholz does. If you can't notice that his FB, CB and CH--and quickly developing Slider--are better than most other pitchers then I don't know what to tell you.

 

I never said that they would trade Buchholz because he "sucked". He would be traded, because unlike the other guys, he is still a prospect and not an established star. He has less value than Lester, because Lester has proved himself. Whoever takes him in a trade would be trading to get his potential and cheap cost, and they would most likely get other players in addition to Buchholz, because they are not going to take a prospect with potential straight up for a star.

 

I don't disagree with this. The ONLY reason Lester has more value is because he has proven himself. It's not because his pitches are better, or because he has a better frame or anything else. It is only because of the league in which he has done his pitching. The Red Sox believe with a high level of confidence that Buchholz will be a Lester-like contributer at the MLB level. He's a different pitcher than Lester, but his stuff is more impressive.

[a700hitter]

My point wasn't that those trades would be made. My point was that even players who you may consider really good could be upgraded.

 

It's a spectrum, just about every player can be upgraded, even if they are seen as really good. Buchholz is further toward the "hard to upgrade" side of things than most other players are--even most players on most other teams. I know that's hard to understand or comprehend because you haven't given him your stamp of approval yet.

There are players who are better than Lester and Pedroia, but there is no realistic chance of upgrading their positions, because they are big stars in their own rights. It just doesn't happen. There is a realistic chance that Buchholz gets traded to ugrade the pitching or another part of the team. He is nowhere near as hard to upgrade as the others. Maybe he will be their in a few years, but he is not close to the status of the others yet. It doesn't matter what his stuff is like.

[example1]

There is a realistic chance that Buchholz gets traded to ugrade the pitching or another part of the team. He is nowhere near as hard to upgrade as the others. Maybe he will be their in a few years' date=' but he is not close to the status of the others yet. It doesn't matter what his stuff is like.[/quote']

 

Who do you think they are trying to trade him for? Vincente Padilla or Randy Wolfe? Chris Young? I'd say that most teams don't have a pitcher the Sox would trade Buchholz for, which indicates that he IS hard to upgrade.

 

Who would be upgrades? List the players you would happily trade him to upgrade... that list shouldn't be very long.

 

For instance, there's only one pitcher among the Yankees starters would would be an upgrade over him, IMO. Would you trade him for Clayton Kershaw? That's the type of player we're talking about. So yes, he can be upgraded, but not easily.

 

We're talking about trading him for perennial Cy Young canidate and the best young pitcher or corner power hitter in baseball. That's not an EASY upgrade.

[Dipre]

Lester and Pedroia may have been traded a few years ago, but as they got more established the Sox FO were less and less likely to move them. Within a year or two, Buchholz will be in the same position that Pedroia or Lester are now. He's arguably just about there already.

 

Everyone here agrees that he can be moved for the right piece, but not for ANY established player. Only elite players. That's not due to hype, it's due to stuff. There's a big difference.

 

If Bucholz is as "unproven" and "hyped" as a700 says, then why does every conversation with another team about any player begins with him?

[BSN07]

Given a700's track record, I would expect Clay to win the Cy Young soon

[a700hitter]

If Bucholz is as "unproven" and "hyped" as a700 says' date=' then why does every conversation with another team about any player begins with him?[/quote']Where did I ever call him "hyped." Don't make up stuff. Is he a proven star?

[Dipre]

Where did I ever call him "hyped." Don't make up stuff. Is he a proven star?

 

Implications are obvious. To make up stuff it needs to be something you have never implied, and if you say you haven't, then you're making stuff up.

 

And i love how you use the term "star". At worst, he's a league average pitcher but has enormous upside. Listen, i'll call him and tell him to stop stealing your laptops so you can lay off him.

 

You're talking about Melky's value but denying his, and that is absolutely hilarious.

[a700hitter]

Who do you think they are trying to trade him for? Vincente Padilla or Randy Wolfe? Chris Young? I'd say that most teams don't have a pitcher the Sox would trade Buchholz for, which indicates that he IS hard to upgrade.

 

Who would be upgrades? List the players you would happily trade him to upgrade... that list shouldn't be very long.

 

For instance, there's only one pitcher among the Yankees starters would would be an upgrade over him, IMO. Would you trade him for Clayton Kershaw? That's the type of player we're talking about. So yes, he can be upgraded, but not easily.

 

We're talking about trading him for perennial Cy Young canidate and the best young pitcher or corner power hitter in baseball. That's not an EASY upgrade.

Throughout the past year, I believe that I have confined my discussions to trading him for Gonzalez, Halladay, Lee, or Felix. Where did you get the idea that I thought it would be an easy upgrade? It would also take more than Buchholz to get anyone of those guys, because his potential is greater than his accomplishments. The Sox would not consider trading Lester or Pedroia for any of those guys, because it would create another huge hole to fill. It would also be very questionable whether Halladay, Lee or Felix would be an upgrade over Lester. Buchholz is not yet close to having the status of Lester or Pedroia. That's a fact. This is what I am saying. I am not saying that Buchholz stinks or that he would be an easy upgrade. Those are words and sentiments that you are trying to attribute to me. I reject those ideas. He is our biggest trading chip that could be moved in the off season in a very big deal. The other guys (Lester, Pedroia) are not trading chips. There is no chance they get moved.

[Dipre]

Throughout the past year' date=' I believe that I have confined my discussions to trading him for Gonzalez, Halladay, Lee, or Felix. Where did you get the idea that I thought it would be an easy upgrade? It would also take more than Buchholz to get anyone of those guys, because his potential is greater than his accomplishments. The Sox would not consider trading Lester or Pedroia for any of those guys, because it would create another huge hole to fill. It would also be very questionable whether Halladay, Lee or Felix would be an upgrade over Lester. [b']Buchholz is not yet close to having the status of Lester or Pedroia. [/b]That's a fact. This is what I am saying. I am not saying that Buchholz stinks or that he would be an easy upgrade. Those are words and sentiments that you are trying to attribute to me. I reject those ideas. He is our biggest trading chip that could be moved in the off season in a very big deal. The other guys (Lester, Pedroia) are not trading chips. There is no chance they get moved.

 

Absolutely, completely, definitely different stance than what you've been since f***ing July. Remember your stance after they "Failed to trade for Halladay because they were unwilling to get rid of Bucholz"?

[Gom]

Right, which is why you should not be consulted in discussions involving prospect moves.

I generally don't discuss prospect moves.

Stephen Strasburg hasn't proven anything yet either. Should the Nationals be out there overpaying for 5 SPs for the next 10 years? Or would it be safe for them to believe that Strasburg will eventually be in their rotation?

I would hope so for the Nationals. However, paying someone that much money in my opinion, who hasn't pitched a day in the big leagues is ludicrous. That's just the system.

You value not having to rely on faith that players will be good. That's not the way that any FO other than the Yankees operates, and even they have more faith in their young players than you do. You and a700 have an entirely unrealistic expectation about how teams should be managed.

Possibly. Except that the Yankees, with their financial resources, have done it this way for the better part of a century, and they've been the most successful team in the history of the sport. The Red Sox, the consensus second richest team, haven't done s*** until recently. I do think that both systems work, if implemented properly.

The true stupidity here is that by your reasoning you would value an aging Juan Gonzalez over a rookie Albert Pujols or Mickey Mantle because Juan Gone has proven he could do it in the big leagues. It's exactly the same thing.

For every aging veteran deal for prospects who turn out, I believe that there are many more deals when the prospects don't pan out. It's kind of a given. Sometimes you get burned, sometimes you don't. The logic of it all is that most prospects do NOT pan out.

Right, and the Red Sox were right not to do it. YOU certainly weren't saying that Lester was going to be really good. If anything this proves that the Red Sox know better what they should do with their youngest players. They were right with Lester and Papelbon, Pedroia, Ellsbury, etc., Now they are holding onto Buchholz (except perhaps in a deal for Halladay or Felix or Gonzalez) and they are saying that Kelly and Westmoreland are off limits. Those of us who support that perspective are apparently idiots because these guys aren't proven yet. You want it both ways but you end up just looking wishy-washy and argumentative.

I honestly have no idea who any of the players in the Red Sox farm system are. Nor do I care. Personally, I don't care what the Sox do as long as they lose. Of course I wasn't saying that Lester wasn't going to be good..or bad. I just didn't know enough about him.

 

I forgot....you know everything. My bad. By the way, why on earth would the Mariners trade for a much worse pitcher than Felix in Buchholz, who is also two years older than Felix?

Jesus, really? The equivalent of spring training?

Sure. It's an analogy. Not a bad one either, I think. Probably beyond you, though.

Not this guy...

Thanks for clearing it up.

Most of the baseball world was touting Buchholz and Hughes. Clearly most of them still think highly of both. The Sox passed on Joba out of concerns for his longterm durability. I'd love you to show me where anyone compared Ellsbury to Rickey Henderson (other than basestealing). Hansen actually WAS a closer in waiting (nobody said he was the actual closer). Bard has a plus, plus arm and went form being ineffective in the minors to being very, very good with some adjustments. Nobody is saying he's Mariano so stop being dumb.

I'm not saying they suck ass, although in frustration, I've said that about Hughes before. The comparison to Henderson was base-stealing. Hansen as a closer in waiting? Well, someone dropped the ball there, don't you think? Yes, I was exaggerating on Bard.

Nobody says the Sox have the best prospect in the AL East. They just reasonably believe that they will have a big core of prospects by 2012 and there's reason to believe this is the case.

I honestly don't know. You might. If anyone reads here, you'd think that the rest of the AL East should just pack up and close shop.

 

I'm saying that the AL East, with the Yankees getting stronger in the minors, and the supposed prospect bonanza the Jays will get with Halladay, the Orioles with their young arms and catcher, and the Rays who have been solid the last decade...I think they will all kind of cancel each other out. I don't think any one team has such amazing prospects that they will dominate for years like the Yankees did with their run of players in the 90's, or even the Sox's mini-run from 04-07. That's all.

And nobody is saying that the Sox will be carried exclusively by their prospects. That would be a stupid thing to say.

Thank you.

[a700hitter]

Implications are obvious. To make up stuff it needs to be something you have never implied, and if you say you haven't, then you're making stuff up.

 

And i love how you use the term "star". At worst, he's a league average pitcher but has enormous upside. Listen, I'll call him and tell him to stop stealing your laptops so you can lay off him.

Find me a single post where I called Buchholz "hyped" or even implied that sentiment. You might find a reactionary post in a 2008 GT when he was consistently s***ing the bed, but others were saying far worse about him in those GT's. I have never denied his big upside. Also, a "league average" pitcher has mixed results--- that's why they are average. This is what I have said about Buchholz. 1. In 2008, he sucked. 2. In 2009, he showed promise, but his results were mixed, i.e he was average. 3. In 2010, his career will be at a crossroads as big things will be expected from him. At 26, he is leaving his prospect status behind. With which of these 3 things to do you disagree?

 

You're talking about Melky's value but denying his' date=' and that is absolutely hilarious.[/quote']Buchholz was being compared to Lester, Pedroia, Ellsbury and Papelbon. Melky was not being compared to that group, nor does he deserve to be.

[a700hitter]

Absolutely' date=' completely, definitely different stance than what you've been since f***ing July. Remember your stance after they "Failed to trade for Halladay because they were unwilling to get rid of Bucholz"?[/quote']What I am saying now, is not at all inconsistent with what I was saying in July.

[Gom]

Someone explain this to me.

 

Why would a team trade a 23 year old Cy Young runner up and one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball right now, for a 25 year old with a lower ceiling who has been pedestrian so far? No matter how much money this guy commands, barring injury, you can throw him in your rotation for a decade and forget about it.

 

This is the guy you build on, not trade.

[a700hitter]

Someone explain this to me.

 

Why would a team trade a 23 year old Cy Young runner up and one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball right now, for a 25 year old with a lower ceiling who has been pedestrian so far? No matter how much money this guy commands, barring injury, you can throw him in your rotation for a decade and forget about it.

 

This is the guy you build on, not trade.

Gom, can't you f***ing read. They'd do it because Buchholz is a proven star who is irreplaceable.

[Gom]

Gom' date=' can't you f***ing read. They'd do it because Buchholz is a proven star who is irreplaceable.[/quote']

 

Thank you for clarifying this for me.