2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not convinced that the Sox needed a closer. They needed a lot of BP help, but Koji and Tazawa would probably be fine in their closer and set up roles. Even if they did need a closer, I think we could have found one who is would be just as effective as Kimbrel for much cheaper.

 

I respectfully disagree. Koji and Tazawa ended last year on the DL. I love them both, but they could break down again at any time.

 

I also don't think it's as easy as you say to get a closer who's as good as Kimbrel. Again I will mention the extreme difficulty Ben had in this regard, failing 3 times with Melancon, Bailey and Hanrahan. Theo also had a nasty one with Bobby Jenks.

[Bellhorn04]

In the sense that only someone with no brain would do it....

 

Seriously, I do not get the cult of Buchholz in the front office. The man is practically a sunk cost at this point. He's completely unreliable to actually give you innings and his quality of performance isn't even that good anymore. Over the last 2 years he's given you a 4.51 combined ERA and less than half the innings he should have, and now he's over 30 I don't see that improving.

 

With all that, he has a fWAR of 7.5 over the last 3 years. We all agree on his unreliability, but calling it a 'cult of Buchholz' is silly.

[Kimmi]

In the sense that only someone with no brain would do it....

 

Seriously, I do not get the cult of Buchholz in the front office. The man is practically a sunk cost at this point. He's completely unreliable to actually give you innings and his quality of performance isn't even that good anymore. Over the last 2 years he's given you a 4.51 combined ERA and less than half the innings he should have, and now he's over 30 I don't see that improving.

 

Due to his now-legendary fragility you frequently have to wind up overpaying at the deadline to get someone to do the innings Buchholz was supposed to be dependable for, every single year, and they just keep walking into the punch over and over and over again when it comes to this guy. His constant tenure on the DL costs you more money than he actually earns and talent into the bargain just to find ways to get those innings pitched bercause these guys just can't seem to learn from history when it comes to Clay Buchholz.

 

You had an opportunity to make him someone else's problem simply by not exercising the option, why not do exactly that and bring in an actual durable pitcher for the same money? The only answer I can come up with is that either someone's got some ego in play with this kid, or they're still seeing stars based on his "potential." The man's 31, he is what he's always going to be and I'm not happy with what that means for him.

 

If I had my druthers he'd break camp in the bullpen just to see if that might help us get a full year out of him. As it is the best news I can say about Buchholz is that we know there will be about half a season's worth of innings that some rookie is going to need to pitch.

 

I don't understand the logic in thinking that paying the 4-prospect package that we paid for Kimbrel, along with a $12 mil salary is worth it, but paying $13 mil for Buchholz is not.

 

Kimbrel will give us roughly 60 innings. Buchholz will give us roughly 100. Kimbrel was worth 1.5 WAR last year. Buchholz was worth 3.2.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Kimmi

[Kimmi]

I respectfully disagree. Koji and Tazawa ended last year on the DL. I love them both, but they could break down again at any time.

 

I also don't think it's as easy as you say to get a closer who's as good as Kimbrel. Again I will mention the extreme difficulty Ben had in this regard, failing 3 times with Melancon, Bailey and Hanrahan. Theo also had a nasty one with Bobby Jenks.

 

We obviously needed some strong BP relief. Bringing in someone who is a proven closer is, no doubt, a very good move. But did we need a closer? Not definitively.

 

As far as finding a closer being easy, maybe, maybe not. But I think we could have found one for cheaper, and used our assets more productively. Most of your closers are found unexpectedly for very cheap, and then go on to earn outrageous contracts. And most of those outrageous contracts for relief pitchers end up being bad contracts.

 

I love having Kimbrel added to our BP. I am not arguing against that part of the trade at all.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Kimmi

[sk7326]

In the sense that only someone with no brain would do it....

 

Seriously, I do not get the cult of Buchholz in the front office. The man is practically a sunk cost at this point. He's completely unreliable to actually give you innings and his quality of performance isn't even that good anymore. Over the last 2 years he's given you a 4.51 combined ERA and less than half the innings he should have, and now he's over 30 I don't see that improving.

 

Due to his now-legendary fragility you frequently have to wind up overpaying at the deadline to get someone to do the innings Buchholz was supposed to be dependable for, every single year, and they just keep walking into the punch over and over and over again when it comes to this guy. His constant tenure on the DL costs you more money than he actually earns and talent into the bargain just to find ways to get those innings pitched bercause these guys just can't seem to learn from history when it comes to Clay Buchholz.

 

You had an opportunity to make him someone else's problem simply by not exercising the option, why not do exactly that and bring in an actual durable pitcher for the same money? The only answer I can come up with is that either someone's got some ego in play with this kid, or they're still seeing stars based on his "potential." The man's 31, he is what he's always going to be and I'm not happy with what that means for him.

 

If I had my druthers he'd break camp in the bullpen just to see if that might help us get a full year out of him. As it is the best news I can say about Buchholz is that we know there will be about half a season's worth of innings that some rookie is going to need to pitch.

 

Nobody gets hurt by the option - worst case, it's not my money ... realistic range = mild overpay for mediocrity or a good pitcher at a robbery rate ...

[Bellhorn04]

Most of your closers are found unexpectedly for very cheap, and then go on to earn outrageous contracts. And most of those outrageous contracts for relief pitchers end up being bad contracts.

 

Most outrageous contracts for starting pitchers end up being bad contracts, too.

 

I don't think it's such a bad thing having a closer who's good for a few seasons in a row. It worked well for the Yankees with Rivera. It worked well for us with Papelbon.

[sk7326]

I respectfully disagree. Koji and Tazawa ended last year on the DL. I love them both, but they could break down again at any time.

 

I also don't think it's as easy as you say to get a closer who's as good as Kimbrel. Again I will mention the extreme difficulty Ben had in this regard, failing 3 times with Melancon, Bailey and Hanrahan. Theo also had a nasty one with Bobby Jenks.

 

It was difficult for Ben - because he kept trading for Proven Closers (for whatever reason) without noticing the underlying pitchers (and none of them were actually that good - although Melancon is a good reliever the Red Sox bailed on) ... instead of just getting pitchers and figuring it out. You look at teams who have won recently - and they found their 9th inning guy from the existing inventory. The Red Sox won a title with this - and the dumb luck that they were stuck with Koji who was brilliant. The best approach to a bullpen is churn and sheer numbers - that has not changed. I agree the bullpen needed help - but the cure and the price to get it seem very off kilter. Starting pitchers have been moved for less. (Hamels was moved for not much more for par exemple)

[Bellhorn04]

The best approach to a bullpen is churn and sheer numbers - that has not changed.

 

That approach kind of sucked last year, you must admit. It was a rogues' gallery of stiffs.

 

Again, our problem is that we're just not producing these guys internally. Papelbon, Tazawa, Bard - that's about it over the last decade.

[Kimmi]

Most outrageous contracts for starting pitchers end up being bad contracts, too.

 

I don't think it's such a bad thing having a closer who's good for a few seasons in a row. It worked well for the Yankees with Rivera. It worked well for us with Papelbon.

 

I agree on both points.

 

Most outrageous contracts for starting pitchers do indeed end up being bad contracts. That's why I think we would have been better off trading for a cost controlled starter and finding relief help through free agency or lesser trades. The way it appears now, we are going to have to offer some starter an outrageous contract.

 

On your second point, I like having Kimbrel and his consistency. Obtaining him was a good move. The cost for him was not good.

[Kimmi]

That approach kind of sucked last year, you must admit. It was a rogues' gallery of stiffs.

 

Again, our problem is that we're just not producing these guys internally. Papelbon, Tazawa, Bard - that's about it over the last decade.

 

That approach didn't work last year, but it is still the best approach to building a pen. Resources, both money and prospects, are well better spent in other areas of need.

 

As far as our BP not working last year, I wonder how much better they might have been had our catchers not been injured, and also how much better they might have been had our starters not necessitated them being called into so many games so early. I'm not saying it would have been a lights out pen, but I don't think they would have been as bad as they were.

[Spudboy]

In the sense that only someone with no brain would do it....

 

Seriously, I do not get the cult of Buchholz in the front office. The man is practically a sunk cost at this point. He's completely unreliable to actually give you innings and his quality of performance isn't even that good anymore. Over the last 2 years he's given you a 4.51 combined ERA and less than half the innings he should have, and now he's over 30 I don't see that improving.

 

Due to his now-legendary fragility you frequently have to wind up overpaying at the deadline to get someone to do the innings Buchholz was supposed to be dependable for, every single year, and they just keep walking into the punch over and over and over again when it comes to this guy. His constant tenure on the DL costs you more money than he actually earns and talent into the bargain just to find ways to get those innings pitched bercause these guys just can't seem to learn from history when it comes to Clay Buchholz.

 

You had an opportunity to make him someone else's problem simply by not exercising the option, why not do exactly that and bring in an actual durable pitcher for the same money? The only answer I can come up with is that either someone's got some ego in play with this kid, or they're still seeing stars based on his "potential." The man's 31, he is what he's always going to be and I'm not happy with what that means for him.

 

If I had my druthers he'd break camp in the bullpen just to see if that might help us get a full year out of him. As it is the best news I can say about Buchholz is that we know there will be about half a season's worth of innings that some rookie is going to need to pitch.

 

Excellent f***ing post. I have said these things many times. But there are those that believe the investment of $13. is a bargain, hence "no brainer".

 

To me he is just taking up a roster spot that a fully healthy pitcher could fill. He never plays a full season. Why the hell would the Sox want him back after his consistent failures?

 

I am hopeful that he was signed with the intent of trading him.

 

One can hope.

[Dojji]

. Most of your closers are found unexpectedly for very cheap.

 

That does not mean that you load up on very cheap relievers and wait for lightning to strike. Not when you're a big market club

[a700hitter]

I respectfully disagree. Koji and Tazawa ended last year on the DL. I love them both, but they could break down again at any time.

 

I also don't think it's as easy as you say to get a closer who's as good as Kimbrel. Again I will mention the extreme difficulty Ben had in this regard, failing 3 times with Melancon, Bailey and Hanrahan. Theo also had a nasty one with Bobby Jenks.

Bailey and Hanrahan were not cheap. They were paid a combined $11 million in 2013 for negligible contributions.

[a700hitter]

Excellent f***ing post. I have said these things many times. But there are those that believe the investment of $13. is a bargain, hence "no brainer".

 

To me he is just taking up a roster spot that a fully healthy pitcher could fill. He never plays a full season. Why the hell would the Sox want him back after his consistent failures?

 

I am hopeful that he was signed with the intent of trading him.

 

One can hope.

It would have been interesting to see what Buch would have commanded on the open market. I would not have been surprised that despite Fangraphs that he would not command $13 million per year. He is a half season pitcher.

[a700hitter]

That does not mean that you load up on very cheap relievers and wait for lightning to strike. Not when you're a big market club

Plus, when we have tried this approach, we have not done very well with it.

[Bellhorn04]

It would have been interesting to see what Buch would have commanded on the open market. I would not have been surprised that despite Fangraphs that he would not command $13 million per year. He is a half season pitcher.

 

You may disagree with this but I think a reasonable comp for Buchholz is Brandon McCarthy. McCarthy got 4 years and 48 million before the 2015 season.

[Spudboy]

You may disagree with this but I think a reasonable comp for Buchholz is Brandon McCarthy. McCarthy got 4 years and 48 million before the 2015 season.

 

Which would go to prove that a fool and his money are soon parted.

 

I don't believe that many teams would make such a "hefty" financial commitment to a part time player.

[a700hitter]

You may disagree with this but I think a reasonable comp for Buchholz is Brandon McCarthy. McCarthy got 4 years and 48 million before the 2015 season.

I am not surprised, and he is probably a decent comp, but does it mean that we saved a whopping $1 million in 2016 by picking up Buch's option? That is not such a value contract imo that it would enhance his trade value. If we trade him, imo we will end up eating part of his salary.

[Bellhorn04]

I am not surprised, and he is probably a decent comp, but does it mean that we saved a whopping $1 million in 2016 by picking up Buch's option?

 

The fact that it's only a one year commitment played into it. The Dodgers could be out $48 million on McCarthy.

 

Good pitchers are just incredibly expensive at this point in time. We ain't seen nothin' yet this offseason.

[User Name]

Buch is likely to get traded IMO.

[a700hitter]

The fact that it's only a one year commitment played into it. The Dodgers could be out $48 million on McCarthy.

 

Good pitchers are just incredibly expensive at this point in time. We ain't seen nothin' yet this offseason.

Maybe McCarthy's value for a 1 year deal would have been $16 million. I am still not getting that Buch is a huge bargain at $13 million.

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe McCarthy's value for a 1 year deal would have been $16 million. I am still not getting that Buch is a huge bargain at $13 million.

 

You're right about that, he's not a huge bargain at that price, and calling it a no-brainer is probably an overstatement. It was a move that made sense, that's really all it was.

[sk7326]

That approach kind of sucked last year, you must admit. It was a rogues' gallery of stiffs.

 

Again, our problem is that we're just not producing these guys internally. Papelbon, Tazawa, Bard - that's about it over the last decade.

 

certainly it ended that way, especially with the way the rotation overextended them. The approach can fail, it also succeeds - if anything it meant they did not churn enough.

 

I actually questioned the approach - not that you don't sign risky fireballers - it's just that you keep going. Some fail, you find more. Also developmentally the team has absolutely been far too conservative with making calls on their pitchers. Instead of looking at guys like Webster and instantly figure out they are bullpen fodder, continuing to dither.

 

As always the question is not about the acquisiton but the price. And yes, I know the prospects could be blocked blah blah blah - but the prospect inventory for trade (unlike say John Henry's coffers) is finite. Kimbrel will be fine. And if they sign Price (and it makes sense to give him 6 years - both younger and better than Lester as a UFA) better still. Relievers bust more than starters (which makes sense since they lack things that would make them good starters - and of course the limited innings) and Kimbrel came off of his worst pro season. So there is some risk anyway. I hope it works out.

[Spudboy]

Buch is likely to get traded IMO.

 

I agree. I think that while his elbow is a question mark to some extent, many teams will be dumb enough to believe that Buch will be something he has not been to date.

 

A good pitcher over a sustained period of time.

 

But oh that "stuff".

[Kimmi]

That does not mean that you load up on very cheap relievers and wait for lightning to strike. Not when you're a big market club

 

Well, you want to have some proven back end guys in the pen, but to an extent you do load up on a bunch of cheap relievers and wait for lightning to strike. And just because the Sox are a big market club doesn't mean that they should be spending like drunken fools. That's what the Yankees do.

[Kimmi]

Which would go to prove that a fool and his money are soon parted.

 

I don't believe that many teams would make such a "hefty" financial commitment to a part time player.

 

Many teams have expressed interest in trading for Buchholz because his contract is appealing for a pitcher who can be so good. They know the risk involved with him, yet they are interested in obtaining him anyway.

 

Picking up his option was a no brainer. It's not a no brainer that he will be worth $13 mil this season. No one can say that for sure. But it was absolutely a no brainer in the sense that the potential reward far outweighs the risk.

[Bellhorn04]

And just because the Sox are a big market club doesn't mean that they should be spending like drunken fools. That's what the Yankees do.

 

It's what we do too. From the time we signed Castillo to the time we extended Porcello we spent over 400 million on 5 players.

[Kimmi]

It's what we do too. From the time we signed Castillo to the time we extended Porcello we spent over 400 million on 5 players.

 

It's a lot of money, but I beg to differ that that money was spent like drunken fools. Pablo was an overpay which I disapproved of, but not a drunken fool overpay. When you spread that $400 million out between the 5 players over the number of years of each contract, it's not outrageous.

 

On the other side of that, anyone complaining that the Sox ownership is tight with its money should just stop.

[a700hitter]

A $184 million payroll for a last place roster is spending money like a stupid drunken sailor imo. Spending like a drunken sailor would be an improvement.

[mvp 78]

Hanley and Pablo were horrible signings. The Porcello extension is just plain sad.