Is Buchholz an Ace?

[iortiz]

There's a thin line you have to walk this offseason between going for it in 2013 and keeping your prospects for beyond.

 

For example, lets say Felix comes available. We'd all s*** our pants to have him. But what if the Mariners said "Felix for Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes, and De La Rosa".

 

I'd turn it down. This team needs a hell of a lot more than 1 ace to turn it around. And a lot of the guys you'd be trading would be guys you need going forward to build a consistent winner, not a 1 and done.

 

I'm not sure what the Mariners would ask for Felix, but if Felix meant those guys, I'd make the deal. Felix deserves that amount of "talent", I wouldn't ask less (probably more) If I were the Mariners (Still, I'm not sure if this is enough for the Mariners or if other team could make a better offer)

 

I understand your concern about the future, but this team needs to win next year, We just can't spend another October in our couches and be the joke for everyone. No way. The Boston Red Sox do not have that privilege. A 5th year in a row and no win a single PO game? No.

 

Sure, we have to address other positions as well, but for God's sake, start with our rotation.

[Dojji]

No, you don't touch a deal like that with a ten foot pole. That's teh definition of one step forward, 5 steps back. You can't sign players to fill the holes a guy like Bogaerts could fill, no matter how you wave your hands and try to pretend that you can or that "an ace is worth it."

 

I'd be willing to deal 2 of those prospects and some filler or useful roster parts in a deal for King Felix. All 4 is ludicrous.

 

This is all besides the fact that the reason such exorbitant prices are being asked for Felix is because neither Felix nor Seattle feel any particular need to consummate a deal in the first place.

 

This is the Hanley thing all over again. Hell, it's the A-Rod thing all over again. There's just names people obsess unreasonably on. As long as we focus on the big names, and demand our team brings them in, we'll never really be able to say we understand how a baseball team works.

[iortiz]

then... if big names are not the answer, how will you compete in the AL East next year? with rookies in the rotation? with Buch and Lester as #1 and #2 and Lackey as number 3? or simply wait to 2014 or 2015?

 

Let's face it, unfortunately this is about money. We are not KC or the A's. Big guys cost tons of money. That won't change. Thing is how to address that money with the proper players and then how to manage those guys properly . Clearly our FO has not made a good job here.

[Dojji]

I think you look at the kind of players teams might actually trade. A team like the Mets might deal Johan Santana, and a team like the Phillies might deal Roy Halladay, and those players could be useful enough to deal with the salary and talent they'd demand. Felix would be worth the salary, but the price in talent would be absurd, if you can even convince the Seattle franchise to do a deal at all. Because as it is right now, Seattle has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to trade Felix Hernandez to anyone, for any return, for any reason.

 

Get that in your head. Seattle knows hust how irreplaceable this man is and has no desire to set themselves up to need to replace him. Over the next handful of years they have committed themselves to try to build a winning franchise around King Felix, and it would take the kind of offer no sane franchise could ever possibly make, in order to convince them to abandon that. You have to set them up with enough talent to win the World Series in the next 3 years, and the Red Sox quite bluntly have no chance of ever doing that, even f they were willing to. It's not happening.

 

That said, I can't see us competing even with those guys in the rotation so "stand pat" may be our least horrible option.

[iortiz]

I think you look at the kind of players teams might actually trade. A team like the Mets might deal Johan Santana, and a team like the Phillies might deal Roy Halladay, and those players could be useful enough to deal with the salary and talent they'd demand. Felix would be worth the salary, but the price in talent would be absurd, if you can even convince the Seattle franchise to do a deal at all. Because as it is right now, Seattle has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to trade Felix Hernandez to anyone, for any return, for any reason.

 

Get that in your head. Seattle knows hust how irreplaceable this man is and has no desire to set themselves up to need to replace him. Over the next handful of years they have committed themselves to try to build a winning franchise around King Felix, and it would take the kind of offer no sane franchise could ever possibly make, in order to convince them to abandon that. You have to set them up with enough talent to win the World Series in the next 3 years, and the Red Sox quite bluntly have no chance of ever doing that, even f they were willing to. It's not happening.

 

That said, I can't see us competing even with those guys in the rotation so "stand pat" may be our least horrible option.

 

The point is not Felix. Sure, Felix would be a good addition, and as I said I'd make the deal for those players, (I agree, I do not see the M's trading King Felix).

 

I'm just saying that we need a true ace (clearly, we do not have one --Buch is not) and a solid # 2 (Buehrle type) just to start. Then you need a 1st baseman, a C (Unless you want to go with Salty) and an OF. You need as well, a DH.

 

Furthermore.. you need a real FO.

 

This team will need a lot of work this offseason. A lot.

[Palodios]

He's not sheerly and utterly dominating in your opinion?

 

You're taking me out of context. Don't do that.

 

I explicitly said "during his current stretch".

[Palodios]

I think you look at the kind of players teams might actually trade. A team like the Mets might deal Johan Santana, and a team like the Phillies might deal Roy Halladay, and those players could be useful enough to deal with the salary and talent they'd demand. Felix would be worth the salary, but the price in talent would be absurd, if you can even convince the Seattle franchise to do a deal at all. Because as it is right now, Seattle has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to trade Felix Hernandez to anyone, for any return, for any reason. .

 

Put into perspective, it would take more to get Felix Hernandez than it would to pry CC Sabathia from the Yankees.

 

There are far better options out there. Really, there are.

[Behindenemylines]

If pitching is what we have been saying is what is the most wrong with this team then if Felix is offered up you have to get him. This would be like when the Sox got Pedro. This is a NUMBER 1 starter that is still young. You put him in front of Buchholtz and Lester in a rotation and I think you go a long way in fixing your pitching. Think like this: if you were starting to build a team and could pick any player in baseball he one of the players at the top of your list. WITH THAT SAID HE HAS SAID HE DOESN'T WANT TO PLAY IN THE BIG MARKETS AND THE M'S ARE NOT TRADING HIM, BUT IT IS ALL RIGHT TO DREAM.

[rjortiz]

Seattle wouldn't make that deal anyway.

[a700hitter]

You're taking me out of context. Don't do that.

 

I explicitly said "during his current stretch".

You should try arguing with yourself. You were comparing him to Pedro when his ERA is 4.16 for the year. A stretch of games is not enough to compare any pitcher to Pedro.

[jung]

Unfortunately as the period of time between the end of Pedro's career extends and most of us are just left looking at his stats, what he really did over the coarse of his career will be lost on many. At least for my money, nobody that pitched in his era or since can hold Pedro's jock.

[Palodios]

You should try arguing with yourself. You were comparing him to Pedro when his ERA is 4.16 for the year. A stretch of games is not enough to compare any pitcher to Pedro.

 

At no point did I compare Buccholz to Pedro. I was pretty clear that neither Pedro, nor anyone within the same league as Pedro is coming to Bostonany time soon.

[a700hitter]

At no point did I compare Buccholz to Pedro. I was pretty clear that neither Pedro, nor anyone within the same league as Pedro is coming to Bostonany time soon.

Honestly, I don't even know what the point of your argument was all about. I said that the guy was solid, but not a number 1. You threw out a bunch of stats calling him utterly dominating in the second half. You don't get to pich only half seasons. Is he solid in your opinion, like I said he was, or do you think he is utterly dominant? Now, you are saying that you said he was utterly dominant for only a stretch. Which is Buchholz in your opinion-- solid or "utterly dominant"? I am not sure where you stand.

[Palodios]

Honestly, I don't even know what the point of your argument was all about. I said that the guy was solid, but not a number 1. You threw out a bunch of stats calling him utterly dominating in the second half. You don't get to pich only half seasons. Is he solid in your opinion, like I said he was, or do you think he is utterly dominant? Now, you are saying that you said he was utterly dominant for only a stretch. Which is Buchholz in your opinion-- solid or "utterly dominant"? I am not sure where you stand.

 

 

Low ERA, insanely high inning numbers. He's been sheer and utterly dominant the second half of this season.

 

Buchholz hadn't pitched in almost a year, and was recovering from a serious back injury. Once he got it together, he pitcher just as well as he did in 2010 and 2011. I voted that he's too inconsistent and the jury is out. I see him as an elite #2 pitcher going into 2013, behind someone like Johnson/Lincecum/Peavy, but if he pitches like he has at the end of this year, I'd be fine with him as a #1.

[Bellhorn04]

Clay lowered his ERA to 4.24 on August 10. Now it's 4.22.

 

This is going to be one of the few Red Sox teams in history without a single starting pitcher with an ERA under 4. (Minimum of 15 starts.)

[jung]

Whatever Buch was or is for however long, he is not a 1 if that is the point. Hell I don't know what the point is any longer. Buch is a great 2 I think but this staff will need a 1 at some point. I don't think 2013 is the issue. There are simply to many holes to fill on this team to expect it to be post season bound in 2013 anyway.

 

As long as it makes 0 mistakes, it should be an interesting team to watch in 2013, even competitive with some of the better teams in the league and could be a contender again by 2014 if some breaks fall their way and again they make 0 mistakes.

 

The only scenario I can envision that might yield a contending team in 2013 would be for the Sox to go all in on the youth movement AND get incredibly lucky in that regard with multiple young players being big surprises. The more they deal for players to come in here, the less likely those deals will pan out producing a contending team. Suggesting they contend also suggests they fix he rotation in one year...doubt that will happen.

 

2014 gives the young pitchers another year to develop and gives them one more year to work a deal for a 1 for the rotation. It also gives the young everyday players another year to develop. Even WMB is not a complete player at this point, far from it.

 

I would be very happy with competing (as in not embarrassing itself like it did this year) in 2013 and contending in 2014. In fact I would think them pretty darned lucky if it worked out that way...especially if upper management and the FO remains as is.

 

I don't know if folks are looking at this league the way it was and still think that is where we are but that is not where we are. The league is much tougher now. Beating the Spanks is only one issue we have to deal with. None of the teams that have made major improvements are going to stand still and we are going to have to deal with all of them. Heck we can't get past the O's and A's and Rays at this point.

 

They need to build back gradually...gradually does mean making enough improvements in one off season to be back in the thick of it again by spring 2013.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by Palodios View Post

 

Low ERA, insanely high inning numbers. He's been sheer and utterly dominant the second half of this season.

 

Buchholz hadn't pitched in almost a year, and was recovering from a serious back injury. Once he got it together, he pitcher just as well as he did in 2010 and 2011. I voted that he's too inconsistent and the jury is out. I see him as an elite #2 pitcher going into 2013, behind someone like Johnson/Lincecum/Peavy, but if he pitches like he has at the end of this year, I'd be fine with him as a #1.

So, basically you are on both sides of the issue. You think that he is not yet a #1 unless he proves himself to be a #1. That's not exactly a bold prediction where you are going out on a limb. Which part of my assessment do you disagree with? I said he was solid, but he wasn't looking like a #1 recently. Here's what I posted that drove you crazy.

Buchholz is not looking that great lately. He's solid, but he's not looking like a #1. He may not be an ideal #2 either. In his last 8 starts he has pitched to his season ERA of 4.16. Maybe that is what he is -- a low 4 ERA starter. That's solid, but not a #1 or 2.

Notice that I didn't say that he was definitely not a number 1 or 2. I said that "maybe" he is a low 4 ERA guy. How is this so diiferent than what you said? You said that "the jury is out." Again, I don't know what point you were making or where you differed with my assessment. Were you arguing just to argue? What the heck is your point? Do you even know what you were disagreeing about?

[Dojji]

 

I'm just saying that we need a true ace

 

Like who? What's your definition of a true ace?

 

Be warned -- this is a thornier question than it first appears.

[Bellhorn04]

'Ace' is one of the most poorly defined terms in baseball. Some people seem to be considering only Hall of Fame level performance when they talk about aces.

[a700hitter]

Like who? What's your definition of a true ace?

 

Be warned -- this is a thornier question than it first appears.

At the bare minimum a number1 has to put up 200 innings, pitch to an ERA under 4, and his team should win a majority of his starts. Save me the wins is a poor measure argument. He doesn't have to get the win, but he needs to put his team in a position to win a majority of his starts.

[iortiz]

Like who? What's your definition of a true ace?

 

Be warned -- this is a thornier question than it first appears.

 

Well, Aces must have durability (no fragile/injures, 200 IP) and consistency (ERA around 3, WHIP under 1) mixed with outstanding/high-level performance (Wins/QS) season after season. Examples? Felix, Verlander, Halladay, Cain, Kershaw, Lee, etc.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, Aces must have durability (no fragile/injures, 200 IP) and consistency (ERA around 3, WHIP under 1) mixed with outstanding/high-level performance (Wins/QS) season after season. Examples? Felix, Verlander, Halladay, Cain, Kershaw, Lee, etc.

 

Cliff Lee is 6-8 this year and the Phillies are 12-16 in his starts. So if 700hitter's terms for an ace as cited above are valid, Lee's ace status is f***ed.

[Station 13]

R.A. Dickey would be our ace right now.

[a700hitter]

Cliff Lee is 6-8 this year and the Phillies are 12-16 in his starts. So if 700hitter's terms for an ace as cited above are valid, Lee's ace status is f***ed.

You might be right about that, or should I say that I may be right about that. His team is over .500, but it is under .500 in Lee's starts. That is concerning. He has had some off years during his career. We just sent a guy like that to LA. In Lee's favor, he has a very low ERA, but other than ERA, how different from Lester is Lee at this point? Lee had been an ace for several years, but he was not one this season. This will be the first season where he did not pitch a single complete game. I don't think I would give him that label this season, nor would I give that label to Lincecum based on 2012. They might both return to their former status, but why get a guy like that? We already have a former ace who we are hoping rediscovers himself in Lester. Lincecum and Lee -- are they aces? I am not sure. They had been, but so had Lester.

[Bellhorn04]

You might be right about that, or should I say that I may be right about that. His team is over .500, but it is under .500 in Lee's starts. That is concerning. He has had some off years during his career. We just sent a guy like that to LA. In Lee's favor, he has a very low ERA, but other than ERA, how different from Lester is Lee at this point? Lee had been an ace for several years, but he was not one this season. This will be the first season where he did not pitch a single complete game. I don't think I would give him that label this season, nor would I give that label to Lincecum based on 2012. They might both return to their former status, but why get a guy like that? We already have a former ace who we are hoping rediscovers himself in Lester. Lincecum and Lee -- are they aces? I am not sure. They had been, but so had Lester.

 

This ace thing certainly gets a little confusing.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Cliff Lee is 6-8 this year and the Phillies are 12-16 in his starts. So if 700hitter's terms for an ace as cited above are valid, Lee's ace status is f***ed.

 

Its more a function of how the Phillies have played rather than Lee. His QS% is close to 70% which is pretty good even in an 'off' year for him.

[a700hitter]

This ace thing certainly gets a little confusing.

An ace has to give you team a chance to win, even if it is a lousy team. Lee and Hamels are on the same team, yet the Phillies record in Hamels starts is 20-10. Hamels is unquestionably the ace of the staff this season, even though the ERAs are very close.

[Bellhorn04]

An ace has to give you team a chance to win, even if it is a lousy team.

 

The Mariners' record in King Felix starts over the last 3 years is only 50-49. Does that disqualify him or lessen him as an ace in your view?

[a700hitter]

The Mariners' record in King Felix starts over the last 3 years is only 50-49. Does that disqualify him or lessen him as an ace in your view?

He's on a crappy team, yet they win a much higher percentage of his games than the remainder of the team's games, so it enhances his ace status.

[rjortiz]

R.A. Dickey would be our ace right now.

 

He'd be a lot of team's number one right now.