2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[SoxSport]

Well done...and I think you just gave some additional insight into why guys like Varitek and Wakefield hang on as long as they can...

 

I think most players these days hang on for the money. You have to be a head of a big corporation to get paid as well as a crappy veteran ML player.

[Elktonnick]

I watch these guys on mlb.com all the time. They are information peddlars. Where they get their info from' date=' nobody knows. It's all a bunch of garbage. They just know a secretary in Selig's office or some GM's assistant--and they get first wind of trades ande dealings. That these guys are so well paid is an indication of how overblown the media has become with cable and internet.[/quote']

 

Not so! I find that most of these guys are pretty accurate in general especially the analysts. BTW, while it is more immediate today because of the internet and cable but the Boston sport press was always been this way. Back in the day when Boston had 5 dailies as well as the Worcester, Hartford, Providence, Springfield and Manchester papers all covering the Sox it was actually more vicious than today.

[jung]

Seem to be missing one significant point here. Pitching is still hard to come by and Oswalts real problem is that nobody was really beating a path to his door regardless of how hard pitching is to come by. Considering how important pitching is in MLB the most significant element to the entire Oswalt off season was the lack of any concerted interest from MLB in general in giving him a spot even as a #5. In retrospect do we really think Oswalt turned down $10M from Detroit? Detroit may have offered him something but at $10M he would have been on the first plane to Detroit.

 

So I really can't put much stock in the grant strategy approach. It is clear that he would rather stay at home than go to the pen for anybody. However a half season someplace probably does not result in a parley into a long term contract either. I suspect that if somebody is willing to put enough money in front of him to come on for half a season then he will pitch someplace. The problem for any team looking at him remains the same. How much money does a team want to put into a guy that may wake up one morning and move the wrong way and be out for 6 weeks. I think that was the problem now and that will be the problem 4 months from now. If a team is really desperate, they may put enough money in front of him and he may pitch. Not sure if either is really feasible as some sort of plan either by Oswalt or by the teams that had been willing to offer him $5M for a year.

 

If something does happen with Oswalt at this point I suspect it will be a matter of happenstance more than planning on either side.

[SoxSport]

Not so! I find that most of these guys are pretty accurate in general especially the analysts. BTW' date=' while it is more immediate today because of the internet and cable but the Boston sport press was always been this way. Back in the day when Boston had 5 dailies as well as the Worcester, Hartford, Providence, Springfield and Manchester papers all covering the Sox it was actually more vicious than today.[/quote']

 

 

What is not so? Some of their info turns out to be good--maybe half of it. Fans just remember what's accurate. Remember when Heyman said AdGon wouldn't sign with the Sox after he was traded there? He was dead wrong off the top of his head. Had no basis for saying that. And it hurt him. He came back by calling Hoyer to the Cubs first. That got him steady work on MLB.com. He's an old Yankee beat writer, and sometimes it shows.

 

Written press is almost irrelevant nowadays. It's mainly network TV and internet-- a lot of it based in NY. I'm not sure current TV pundits like Heyman and Rosenthal are quite the same as the old press journalists. These guys are basically like the old gossip columnists. They aren't like Shaughnessy or Ryan, or that lot. I think Gammons changed when he went from Globe columnist to ESPN pundit.

[User Name]

Designated hitter David Ortiz arrived with a flourish on Wednesday and took some batting practice. He also spoke to reporters and had a little interaction with fans, telling them "I'm going to let you know right now, I'm [on] this diet but if I don't start hitting bombs I'm going back to my fried chicken."

 

That's funny.

[jacksonianmarch]

Another thing I wanted to bring up here is that everyone seems to be talking about the sox being 3 deep and being able to count on their top 3. How did you get 3 deep?

 

Beckett was awesome last yr, but he isnt durable and has thrown 200IP exactly once in the last 4 seasons. But I'll give you that one

 

Lester had an off season, which was still a great season by most standards, and he is a horse. I'll give you that one.

 

How is Buchholz all of a sudden considered a lock to be as shutdown as the sox need him to be in the #3 role? He's thrown 170IP once. He's never thrown over 180IP. He's coming off a season in which he allowed more HR than in 2010 in less than half the innings, AND he is coming off a vertebral fracture. He's a very solid middle of the rotation pitcher when healthy, but he is nowhere near a sure thing. And the reason why I say middle of the rotation is because he doesnt go terribly deep in games, has good but not great command and doesnt K a lot of hitters.

[User Name]

He was averaging right around 6 IP a start last year. Had he not gotten injured, he would have finished the year around 190 IP. Mind you, this was an improvement over 2009 which was an improvement over 2008, which also saw improvements in K/9 and BB/9, although he had some BABIP problems (which would have probably evened out), although the HR/9 rate is a concern.

 

The stuff is there, if the health is there, he should be able to replicate his 2011 numbers over a full season. What's the argument against it?

 

I'll tell you what he is. He's more of a sure thing than either Nova or Pineda, two pitchers who you tout as world beaters and who have exactly a season under their belt, and one of them in Seattle. If they're "sure things" because of their youth and upside, so is Bucholz.

[jacksonianmarch]

He was averaging right around 6 IP a start last year. Had he not gotten injured, he would have finished the year around 190 IP. Mind you, this was an improvement over 2009 which was an improvement over 2008, which also saw improvements in K/9 and BB/9, although he had some BABIP problems (which would have probably evened out), although the HR/9 rate is a concern.

 

The stuff is there, if the health is there, he should be able to replicate his 2011 numbers over a full season. What's the argument against it?

 

I'll tell you what he is. He's more of a sure thing than either Nova or Pineda, two pitchers who you tout as world beaters and who have exactly a season under their belt, and one of them in Seattle. If they're "sure things" because of their youth and upside, so is Bucholz.

 

Nova I have never said is anything more than a #2 and more suited to a #3 role, ie middle of the rotation. And in terms of BABIP, Nova's was at .281. Buchholz's from 2011 was .258. So if we're playing the luck card, it would seem that Nova had worse luck than Buchholz, even though they both played to similar ERA's and WHIP's. Buchholz does strike out more guys and they both go 6+IP per start. I actually think the comp is pretty close. But one guy is coming off a vertebral fracture and the other guy is coming off a forearm strain. I think I'd take the strain over the vertebral fracture.

 

Pineda is in another world and you know it. Let's compare a few things here.

 

Buchholz in 2011- 6.53K/9IP, 1.94K/BB, 1.29WHIP

Pineda in 2011- 9.11K/9IP, 3.15K/BB, 1.10WHIP in his rookie season.

 

Also, Pineda is 4 yrs younger, throws harder, and has a bigger frame. Plus, all 3 of the guys you are putting this comparison into play with threw about 170IP in their career high seasons. It just so happens that last yr was the rookie campaign for both Nova and Pineda, while Buchholz has been throwing innings all the way back into 2007.

 

So in short, how the hell can you say Buchholz is more of a sure thing than Nova or Pineda. Nova had a similar, albeit slightly inferior season on average due to the luck factor and the fact that Buchholz does strike out more batters than he does. But his season was MUCH better due to the fact that he was healthy the whole season. Pineda was on another planet from Buchholz.

[User Name]

Pineda has pitched one year at the ML level. In Seattle. The impact of the stadium on his numbers cannot be denied until he proves otherwise.There is no "other world" until he does it consistently. He is not a sure-thing no matter how much you pat your back about it. He can be ten years younger, but until he proves he can handle the AL East (which Bucholz has already done) the point stands.

 

For the record, Bucholz' 2010 (healthy) average fastball velocity was 94.1, Pineda's last year was 94.2. WHAT A DIFFERENCE!

 

I have no desire to continue this conversation since it's a matter of opinion, and obviously the opinions are heavily influenced by the team one roots for. "Wait and see". However, saying that Bucholz couldn't put up #2 numbers over a full healthy season is ridiculous.

[jacksonianmarch]

Pineda has pitched one year at the ML level. In Seattle. The impact of the stadium on his numbers cannot be denied until he proves otherwise.There is no "other world" until he does it consistently. He is not a sure-thing no matter how much you pat your back about it. He can be ten years younger, but until he proves he can handle the AL East (which Bucholz has already done) the point stands.

 

For the record, Bucholz' 2010 (healthy) average fastball velocity was 94.1, Pineda's last year was 94.2. WHAT A DIFFERENCE!

 

I have no desire to continue this conversation since it's a matter of opinion, and obviously the opinions are heavily influenced by the team one roots for. "Wait and see". However, saying that Bucholz couldn't put up #2 numbers over a full healthy season is ridiculous.

 

You are saying he needs consistency, yet Buchholz has had exactly one season where he's thrown as many innings as Pineda. How can you say Pineda's problem in comparison to Buch's is consistency when Buch hasnt been consistent himself. It's frickin laughable, lol. You dont want to argue it anymore because you know I am right!

[jacksonianmarch]

and last I checked, last season was 2011. How was Buchholz's fastball then? And what makes you think he will be able to stay healthy and apparently consistent like he's shown throughout his entire career, lol. I didnt know consistency for starters was 4 consecutive seasons of at least 76IP, lol

[User Name]

Nice cherry-picking. He got injured last year, after a season of 173 IP. I can confidently say Pineda is not as good a bet to pitch well in 2012 as Bucholz if both are healthy, because one has pitched in the AL East, in a hitters' park, and the other in the AL West, where hitters go to die. You can gloss over this all you want, but it's reality. Take the homer glasses off.

 

As for 2011's velocity, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know his velocity was eventually affected by his injury: If you check out his velocity charts, you'll see a sudden drop near the end of his season last season.

[jacksonianmarch]

I've posted it before and I will again. Pineda had a great yr away from Safeco. His ERA was 4.40, but his peripherals were solid. 8.7K/9IP, 3.4K/BB, 1.17WHIP. Buchholz hasnt sniffed that K rate or walk rate. So eliminate the friendly stadium and you still get a guy who is putting up ace level peripherals. Try again.

 

Also, you are assuming Buchholz regains his velocity after FRACTURING HIS BACK. My guess is you are going to see a totally revamped Buchholz. One who is throwing 2mph slower on average, but much more refined in his mechanics to avoid injuring the back again

[User Name]

Peripherals can be pretty, but they don't necessarily translate into results (even though they do most of the time). If/when they do, i'll eat a big plate of crow. In the meantime, he's not a sure thing.

[a700hitter]

"It’s strictly a money thing," said Lance Berkman to reporters (including Derrick Goold of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch and B.J. Rains of FOXSportsMidwest.com) when asked about Roy Oswalt (Twitter links). "The Cardinals [offer] ... wasn’t enough to lure him out of Mississippi ... I think he feels like that he can get the same money in half a season as he could in a full season and he’s probably right."

Write the man a nice check and bring him to camp. If it's money, the Sox have it. Why roll the dice on Doubront and a bin of retreads and damaged goods from the Dollar Store. Also, as Jacko has pointed out, Buchholz is a bit risky this year. They don't know what caused his stress fracture, so they don't know if this will become a chronic condition. Bard has great stuff, but we don't know if he can be a reliable starter. We can use the help, and when Oswalt is healthy, he is very good. If he has a bad back, oh well, another $10 million down the toilet. It will have plenty of company with Jenks' money, Cameron's money and Lackey's money.

[jacksonianmarch]

Peripherals can be pretty' date=' but they don't necessarily translate into results (even though they do most of the time). If/when they do, i'll eat a big plate of crow. In the meantime, he's not a sure thing.[/quote']

 

I never said Pineda was. I am saying he has much more going for him and much more of a constant than Buchholz can be at this juncture. He's obviously got his warts, mostly being new to the AL East (granted, he was still in the AL last yr) and being a second yr pitcher. But he's got a whole lot more going for him than Buch right now.

 

Also, like I said above, I think you're going to see Buchholz be even more of a sinkerballing low K pitcher this yr because I think you are going to see an emphasis on cleaner mechanics and less effort in the windup. You dont get a stress fracture in your spine unless you are doing something incredibly unnatural or you have a predisposition to it. It's a rare injury for pitchers, and they cannot fix the predisposition part. SO they will have to clean up his mechanics or his back issue will be a chronic problem

[User Name]

I never said Pineda was. I am saying he has much more going for him and much more of a constant than Buchholz can be at this juncture. He's obviously got his warts' date=' mostly being new to the AL East (granted, he was still in the AL last yr) and being a second yr pitcher. But he's got a whole lot more going for him than Buch right now. [/quote']

 

According to you.

 

Also, like I said above, I think you're going to see Buchholz be even more of a sinkerballing low K pitcher this yr because I think you are going to see an emphasis on cleaner mechanics and less effort in the windup. You dont get a stress fracture in your spine unless you are doing something incredibly unnatural or you have a predisposition to it. It's a rare injury for pitchers, and they cannot fix the predisposition part. SO they will have to clean up his mechanics or his back issue will be a chronic problem

 

Conjecture, doctor. For all we know it could have been a freak problem.

[a700hitter]

I never said Pineda was. I am saying he has much more going for him and much more of a constant than Buchholz can be at this juncture. He's obviously got his warts, mostly being new to the AL East (granted, he was still in the AL last yr) and being a second yr pitcher. But he's got a whole lot more going for him than Buch right now.

 

Also, like I said above, I think you're going to see Buchholz be even more of a sinkerballing low K pitcher this yr because I think you are going to see an emphasis on cleaner mechanics and less effort in the windup. You dont get a stress fracture in your spine unless you are doing something incredibly unnatural or you have a predisposition to it. It's a rare injury for pitchers, and they cannot fix the predisposition part. SO they will have to clean up his mechanics or his back issue will be a chronic problem

I'll take him. He's better than anything we have that will pitch in our 5th hole this season.

[User Name]

Dude has to post about everything.

[Elktonnick]

What is not so? Some of their info turns out to be good--maybe half of it. Fans just remember what's accurate. Remember when Heyman said AdGon wouldn't sign with the Sox after he was traded there? He was dead wrong off the top of his head. Had no basis for saying that. And it hurt him. He came back by calling Hoyer to the Cubs first. That got him steady work on MLB.com. He's an old Yankee beat writer, and sometimes it shows.

 

Written press is almost irrelevant nowadays. It's mainly network TV and internet-- a lot of it based in NY. I'm not sure current TV pundits like Heyman and Rosenthal are quite the same as the old press journalists. These guys are basically like the old gossip columnists. They aren't like Shaughnessy or Ryan, or that lot. I think Gammons changed when he went from Globe columnist to ESPN pundit.

 

We are talking about the press genericly. Boston is a baseball town always has been. The Boston sports press whether written or elctronic are pretty accurate. They just always don't report what they really know. Their reporting will also change things. For example, some stuff gets leaked to the press to get a sense of how it will play and it doesn't go over well so it doesn't happen. Was the press wrong? I don't think so. BTW never argue with a man who buys his ink by the barrel is still true. Nobody wins in Boston by taking on both the Globe and Herald. May be one but not both. And I wouldn't want the Globe to be against me if I were a Boston sports figure. Life would be quite unpleasant.

[jacksonianmarch]

I'll take him. He's better than anything we have that will pitch in our 5th hole this season.

 

I never said Buchholz wasn't a good pitcher. All is said was that he isn't a guy I'd include in any big 3 conversation. The sox put themselves in a position where he must be great this yr to compete. They've left their 4 spot to a career reliever who's imploded out of the rotation when he debuted as a pro and your 5th spot is a collection of trash heap players and another career reliever. I just keep seeing people write that they have a great top 3 and they'll carry the rotation. Well, your #3 is a huge question mark as well and the contingencies are poor as well.

[VA Sox Fan]

That's funny.

 

[ORS]

and last I checked' date=' last season was 2011. How was Buchholz's fastball then? And what makes you think he will be able to stay healthy and apparently consistent like he's shown throughout his entire career, lol. I didnt know consistency for starters was 4 consecutive seasons of at least 76IP, lol[/quote']

Buchholz wasn't a full-time big-league pitcher until 2010. You are either intentionally ignoring or forgetting his minor league innings from 2008 and 2009. I'll give you benefit of the doubt and say you forgot.

 

Is he a question mark? Sure, expectations for anyone coming back from injury should have some uncertainty. Is he a "huge" question mark? I think that's overstating it a bit.

[Muggah]

I never said Buchholz wasn't a good pitcher. All is said was that he isn't a guy I'd include in any big 3 conversation. The sox put themselves in a position where he must be great this yr to compete. They've left their 4 spot to a career reliever who's imploded out of the rotation when he debuted as a pro and your 5th spot is a collection of trash heap players and another career reliever. I just keep seeing people write that they have a great top 3 and they'll carry the rotation. Well' date=' your #3 is a huge question mark as well and the contingencies are poor as well.[/quote']

 

I agree with you. People are expecting way too much from these three. If history is any judge, the only one likely to go over 200 IP is Lester. That leaves an awful lot of innings for this list of losers they've assembled to throw. Opposing teams are going to be salivating.

[User Name]

Josh Beckett has thrown 190+ innings four out of the six years he's been a Red Sox. Bucholz was on pace to throw around 185 and got a freak injury.

 

Expecting 560 innings out of the three of them is not unrealistic unless you're stupidly negative.

[User Name]

Buchholz wasn't a full-time big-league pitcher until 2010. You are either intentionally ignoring or forgetting his minor league innings from 2008 and 2009. I'll give you benefit of the doubt and say you forgot.

 

Is he a question mark? Sure, expectations for anyone coming back from injury should have some uncertainty. Is he a "huge" question mark? I think that's overstating it a bit.

 

Because of the fragile nature of pitchers, basically every one of them is a question mark of some sort.

[Muggah]

Josh Beckett has thrown 190+ innings four out of the six years he's been a Red Sox. Bucholz was on pace to throw around 185 and got a freak injury.

 

Expecting 560 innings out of the three of them is not unrealistic unless you're stupidly negative.

 

See, that's how you swabs rationalize things away when you have no case other than wishful thinking. "Buchholts was on pace to throw around 185 until he got a freaky injury..."The fact is he didn't get to 185, and he never has. And it wasn't a 'freaky' injury like you call it, it was an injury from the year before.

 

And then you say Beckett has thrown 190+ four out of six years---so what, and what about the other two? And are you aware that Beckett's averaged about 156 in even numbered years over his whole career? Of course you're not, because that doesn't fit your la-la land outlook. You people are comical, you really are.

[a700hitter]

See' date=' that's how you swabs rationalize things away when you have no case other than wishful thinking. [i']"Buchholts was on pace to throw around 185 until he got a freaky injury..."[/i]The fact is he didn't get to 185, and he never has. And it wasn't a 'freaky' injury like you call it, it was an injury from the year before.

 

And then you say Beckett has thrown 190+ four out of six years---so what, and what about the other two? And are you aware that Beckett's averaged about 156 in even numbered years over his whole career? Of course you're not, because that doesn't fit your la-la land outlook. You people are comical, you really are.

A stress injury seems to be a wear and tear issue as opposed to a freak occurrence like an impact injury. They don't know how the stress fracture occurred, so they don't know if they have eliminated the cause of the injury.

[ORS]

Do you put a lot of stock into the "even year" stuff? Sounds very la-la landish to me.

 

I don't discount that he has performed better in odd years than even years, so the correlation does exsit. That doesn't mean I think there's causation. If I did, I would be out looking for leprechauns at the end of the rainbow and the Easter Bunny.

[User Name]

See' date=' that's how you swabs rationalize things away when you have no case other than wishful thinking. [i']"Buchholts was on pace to throw around 185 until he got a freaky injury..."[/i]The fact is he didn't get to 185, and he never has. And it wasn't a 'freaky' injury like you call it, it was an injury from the year before.

 

Including MILB innings (which are innings pitched) he threw 199 in 2009 and 177 in 2010. The injury is a reality, but it doesn't take away from what he was doing in 2011.

 

Besides, if my estimate is 560 for the three pitchers combined, he doesn't even need to get 185 (which i think he will anyway, because i don't try to find the WCS for everything).

 

And then you say Beckett has thrown 190+ four out of six years---so what, and what about the other two? And are you aware that Beckett's averaged about 156 in even numbered years over his whole career? Of course you're not, because that doesn't fit your la-la land outlook. You people are comical, you really are.

 

Even-numbered years. That's a stupid theory that you adopt using your "SKY IS FALLING" outlook. Stick to facts.

 

And you speak of comical. What a joke.