The Official 2010 Hot Stove Thread.

[italstallianion]

I'm not sure if there was a spot reporting this, but the Red Sox claimed pitcher Taylor Buchholz from the Blue Jays.

[a700hitter]

I'm not sure if there was a spot reporting this' date=' but the Red Sox claimed pitcher Taylor Buchholz from the Blue Jays.[/quote']What? Why? Do they think he is related to Clay?

[soxfan74]

He pitched pretty well in 2008. Then Had Tommy John surgery in 2009. Typical Theo signing.

[BSN07]

What? Why? Do they think he is related to Clay?

 

ST cannon fodder. He will probably be in AAA next season filling in a rotation spot.

[VA Sox Fan]

I'm not sure if there was a spot reporting this' date=' but the Red Sox claimed pitcher Taylor Buchholz from the Blue Jays.[/quote']

 

some more info....

 

Sox Acquire Taylor Buchholz

Posted by Chad Finn, Globe Staff November 15, 2010 02:31 PM

The Red Sox have cornered the market on pitchers named Buchholz.

 

The announced this afternoon that the club claimed 29-year-old righthander Taylor Buchholz off waivers from the Toronto Blue Jays. He was added to the 40-man roster and will likely compete for a role in the bullpen.

 

Buchholz -- who is no relation to Clay Buchholz -- went 1-0 with a 3.75 ERA in nine relief appearances (12 innings) between the Rockies and Blue Jays in 2010.

 

His best season by far was 2008, when he went 6-6 with a 2.17 ERA and a 0.95 WHIP in 63 appearances (66.1 innings) for the Rockies. He allowed just 45 hits while walking 18 and striking out 56.

 

He missed the entire 2009 season following Tommy John surgery.

 

In 135 appearances in the majors, Buchholz has a 4.39 ERA in 285 innings. He has has no discernable platoon split; over his career, righthanded hitters have a .713 OPS against him compared to .718 for lefties.

 

Buchholz debuted with the Astros in 2006 before joining the Rockies in '07.

[Palodios]

I wonder if there is fifth Ramon Ramirez available on the trade market.

[das11209]

Bullpen being built from scrap-heap. Again.

 

We know how that works out.

[Will617]

Bullpen being built from scrap-heap. Again.

 

We know how that works out.

 

Scott Atchison and Scott Schoeneweis were the only "scrap-heap" signings last season, and Schoeneweis was dumped pretty quickly when it wasn't working out - everyone outside of Ramon Ramirez had spent their entire careers with the Sox (except Okajima). Atchison worked out pretty well, as I remember. This is a no-risk, high-reward signing for the Sox. It costs them almost nothing to bring the lesser Buchholz in and give him a spot if he performs well in Spring Training or starts in AAA and does well.

[Will617]

I'm also curious to see what the Sox do with Okajima. He had a terrible first half, but also had a reasonably good second half. His control got better as the season went on, but it's probably a concern that he's displayed fly-ball tendencies for awhile now.

[jacksonianmarch]

He's a FA, so I dont think he comes back

[Will617]

He's in his second arbitration year.

[Station 13]

He's in his second arbitration year.

 

And due for a raise over $3M, he's not coming back. I hope not.

[Palodios]

Scott Atchison and Scott Schoeneweis were the only "scrap-heap" signings last season

 

They brought in a pile of AAAA scrap heap relievers last year. Embree, Boof Bonser, the other Ramon Ramirez...

[Dojji]

I'd bring him back (Oki) as he's really only had the one ba year which was really only one bad month. That doesn't erase 3 years of solid performances in my book.

 

It's really hard to find decent lefties and he's really not that far removed from effectiveness. I wouldn't pencil him in for a setup role or anything absurd like that but in my humble, if he was on the FA wire he'd be exactly the kind of guy Theo would be looking to pick up and try to get a good year out of so I'd take a chance on Oki bouncing back with the idea that I try to shape the roster so he can be cut if it doesn't work out.

[Will617]

They brought in a pile of AAAA scrap heap relievers last year. Embree' date=' Boof Bonser, the other Ramon Ramirez...[/quote']

 

I guess I didn't explain myself clearly/well - when I posted that, I was thinking of players that pitched in the Sox bullpen". Out of the scrap heap relievers they brought in, only Atchison and Schoeneweis had extended time pitching for the Sox, and therefore the moves did not hurt the Sox in any way. Paying half a million to various relievers and finding one or two that pans out is a move that the Sox can afford to make. Repeating the same deal is a practice that, in theory, shouldn't end up costing the Sox anything.

[jacksonianmarch]

But none of them "panned out." Atchison was a good mop up guy, but the sox needed setup men and they couldnt get one aside from an overworked Bard.

[Dojji]

If you think that it was the reject pile guys they were going to looking for setup material you're insane.

 

Going into the season they brought those guys in to be in the mix behind Oki, Bard, MDC and RamRam. Obviously that's not how it panned out, but those 4 guys were supposed to shake out a setup corps between them. All the waiver claims and schlubs were there to be is warm bodies to take middle innings, and that's exactly what Atchison was, it's not his fault that 3 of the 4 aforementioned pitchers spit the bit all at the same time.

[a700hitter]

If you think that it was the reject pile guys they were going to looking for setup material you're insane.

 

Going into the season they brought those guys in to be in the mix behind Oki, Bard, MDC and RamRam. Obviously that's not how it panned out, but those 4 guys were supposed to shake out a setup corps between them. All the waiver claims and schlubs were there to be is warm bodies to take middle innings, and that's exactly what Atchison was, it's not his fault that 3 of the 4 aforementioned pitchers spit the bit all at the same time.

Three of the 4 guys that were supposed to fight it out for the setup roles bombed out. That's a terrible batting average by the FO-- just terrible

[a700hitter]

Taylor Buchholz is related to Clay:

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/

[example1]

Purely a depth move. They are going after known underachievers. I'm not against it, compared to the other usual move at this time of year: picking up unknown cheap available minor league players. Both are pure depth moves, but the Sox are going after guys in Miller and Buchholz who were once considered decent MLB prospects. Maybe a correction here or there could make them more than simply replacement level, which is all they are intended to be anyway.

 

At some point in the depth chart every team runs into crap-shots. With Bucholz and Miller we have reached that level.

[a700hitter]

Purely a depth move. They are going after known underachievers. I'm not against it, compared to the other usual move at this time of year: picking up unknown cheap available minor league players. Both are pure depth moves, but the Sox are going after guys in Miller and Buchholz who were once considered decent MLB prospects. Maybe a correction here or there could make them more than simply replacement level, which is all they are intended to be anyway.

 

At some point in the depth chart every team runs into crap-shots. With Bucholz and Miller we have reached that level.

I hear that Gary Rogenburk (sp) - once big prospect has finally put things together for Bill Lee's traveling team, and Robinson Checo is finally healthy too.

[ORS]

Three of the 4 guys that were supposed to fight it out for the setup roles bombed out. That's a terrible batting average by the FO-- just terrible

But, would anyone have predicted that would be the case? Probably not, which is why bullpen construction is a daunting task for pretty much every GM. Save a few guys, you can't count on year in year out consistently good performance....and they pretty much all want to close, so you are probably only signing one of those guys.

 

The best way to build an effective BP is from within, as you will control a good relief pitcher for his first 6 years, so he can't sign with some team offering him the closer's role. After that, you are left rolling the dice with the guys who have a lot of variance from year to year.

 

Some of the better bullpens over the last few years (Giants in 2010, Tampa in 2008, Philly in 2008) featured some reclamation projects that performed very well to make them so good. We get it that you don't like it, but you not liking it does not invalidate it as an approach that, while certainly not guaranteed (nothing is, not even signing "proven" guys - who regularly tank), is one that can work.

[a700hitter]

But, would anyone have predicted that would be the case? Probably not, which is why bullpen construction is a daunting task for pretty much every GM. Save a few guys, you can't count on year in year out consistently good performance....and they pretty much all want to close, so you are probably only signing one of those guys.

 

The best way to build an effective BP is from within, as you will control a good relief pitcher for his first 6 years, so he can't sign with some team offering him the closer's role. After that, you are left rolling the dice with the guys who have a lot of variance from year to year.

 

Some of the better bullpens over the last few years (Giants in 2010, Tampa in 2008, Philly in 2008) featured some reclamation projects that performed very well to make them so good. We get it that you don't like it, but you not liking it does not invalidate it as an approach that, while certainly not guaranteed (nothing is, not even signing "proven" guys - who regularly tank), is one that can work.

I don't buy into the luck theory of building a bullpen. Bullpens are a huge factor in today's game. If such a significant factor in the game is left to chance, then some new blood and new ideas are needed in major league baseball front offices. I think the successful teams adapt throughout the season and continue to build their bullpens after the start of the season. Last year, the Sox FO efforts to build the bullpen during the season were woeful. The internal candidates were generally ineffective, and they made no significant moves outside the organization. They take accountability for the bullpen. It had no significant injuries, and I don't buy the crap shoot theory. There has to be accountability.

[Palodios]

The bullpen this year was a situation of bad luck. Of the six guys we expected to be in the bullpen, only one pitched up to anywhere near expectations. Wake,Pap,RR,MDC,Ok, all failed miserably this year. As theo kept saying, there were only 5 or 6 relievers traded this year, and two of them were Red Sox.

[a700hitter]

The bullpen this year was a situation of bad luck. Of the six guys we expected to be in the bullpen' date=' only one pitched up to anywhere near expectations. Wake,Pap,RR,MDC,Ok, all failed miserably this year. As theo kept saying, there were only 5 or 6 relievers traded this year, and two of them were Red Sox.[/quote']...and one of them was Kerry Wood.

[Palodios]

Get over Kerry Wood. His ERA was in the 6.0 range when the yanks got him, they got lucky.

[Dojji]

...and one of them was Kerry Wood.

Kerry Wood had the luckiest terrible year I ever saw with the Yankees. He walked more than a guy every other inning and only got away with it because he was amazingly lucky with balls in play. That is not the kind of pitcher you want to gamble on to save your season with your other options spitting the bit. There was no reason to believe he wouldn't have continued to pitch as he did with Cleveland -- and every evidence that he in fact did, but got lucky for a couple months to manage to put up a half season that looked good to the uninformed.

 

You are ultimately calling on Boston to have traded for a guy who at the time had 5 walks an inning aned a 6.30 ERA. The fact that the Yankees walked away from the crash does not mean that it would have been smart for us to jump off the same cliff.

[a700hitter]

Get over Kerry Wood. His ERA was in the 6.0 range when the yanks got him' date=' they got lucky.[/quote']He's a proven pitcher who was healthy at the time of the trade and he was throwing the ball well. He was worth the risk. Did the Yanks give up anything of consequence for him? Didn't they also get Cleveland to eat most of his salary? It seems like a smart move to me. I don't understand this mentality of rationalizing and making excuses for bad FO moves. When the Sox stink, it's bad luck and unforeseeable, and when the Yankees make a good move or do well, it's money or luck or both. It's all just too whiny for me. Our FO has a premier franchise and it did a crappy job with it last year. Period. The ML team didn't make the playoffs despite an enormous payroll and our minor leagues has nothing to help the big team for a couple of seasons. Let's give them all the Executive of the Year Award. I think they will right the ship in 2011, but in 2010 they did a poor job.

[Palodios]

You have unreasonable expectations, that's the problem. This was a worst case scenario kind of year, and believing that trading prospects for a pitcher with a 6.0 ERA is going to solve your problems is completely unrealisitic. There is a point where nothing can be done to salvage a year, and they hit that point.

[a700hitter]

You have unreasonable expectations' date=' that's the problem. This was a worst case scenario kind of year, and believing that trading prospects for a pitcher with a 6.0 ERA is going to solve your problems is completely unrealisitic. There is a point where nothing can be done to salvage a year, and they hit that point.[/quote']There are prospects with good prospects and prospects with no prospects. The Yanks traded the latter. If the Sox had done the move, people here would have been calling it "low cost high reward."

 

Last year was a worst case scenario for the Sox bullpen? Who's fault was that? It's not like they were in a plane crash or there was a cholera epidemic. They just stunk, and the FO didn't adjust or correct it in season.