Clay Buchholz - Is he worth the 2016 option?

[NativeBostonian]

And if I thought that the team would actually put Buchholz in the 6 spot, I would have no problem with the option being picked up. It's the fact that I know he's going to find a way to fool us and supplant a patently more deserving starter and put THEM in the 6th spot that's making me unhappy.

 

Buchholz has always been about doing just enough to get a job and not enough to DO the job. Any time his job is threatened he magically improves and any time he's secure he either pulls up lame or starts sucking -- it's actually remarkable how often he's pulled that crap and people still don't see it coming when he does it again..

 

I don't mind having Clay on the team but I want him to spend all year having to earn every start he gets. Maybe that's the way to finally get good-Buchholz all year. But we already know that won't happen, the staff is too in love with the prospect he used to be. He's going to sucker the staff into his "ace potential" and become secure in his job and the whole mess will start again.-- he's the only 32 year old pitcher in the world that can still sell himself on potential, and he's going to do it again, just you watch

 

Couldn't agree with you any more. It wont be too long before everyone here starts calling him names again. Right now people are under the good Clay Buchholtz spell and can't see him for what he really is.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Couldn't agree with you any more. It wont be too long before everyone here starts calling him names again. Right now people are under the good Clay Buchholtz spell and can't see him for what he really is.

 

I don't want to see Buchholz in a Sox uniform next year, either, but they absolutely had to pick up that option. He has significant trade value.

 

Some people have said that if he were a free agent this off season, he could've possibly received the best deal out there for a starter. I really do think they are going to move him this offseason, and it won't be difficult to do, when you consider all factors.

[S5Dewey]

I don't want to see Buchholz in a Sox uniform next year, either, but they absolutely had to pick up that option. He has significant trade value.

 

Some people have said that if he were a free agent this off season, he could've possibly received the best deal out there for a starter. I really do think they are going to move him this offseason, and it won't be difficult to do, when you consider all factors.

 

We're going to disagree on this. IMO if the FO started shopping Buch around the line of interested GM's would stretch the length of Landsdowne St. and onto Yawkey Way, and we should be interested in keeping him for the same reasons other GM's would want to acquire him. He's got great stuff and could be a #1- #2 in 2017. Remember, even if he only goes half a season he's not a bad buy at $13.5M in today's market.

 

The only way I can see him going is with another piece in a trade for a real TOR pitcher. Even then I don't think that will happen because I don't see another club trading a TOR pitcher for Buch, even if we throw in another player like Holt or Hernandez. TOR pitchers are too valuable to be trading away for a question mark + one or two maybes.

 

Like him or not, I think we're stuck with him.

[Eddy Ballgame]

We're going to disagree on this. IMO if the FO started shopping Buch around the line of interested GM's would stretch the length of Landsdowne St. and onto Yawkey Way, and we should be interested in keeping him for the same reasons other GM's would want to acquire him. He's got great stuff and could be a #1- #2 in 2017. Remember, even if he only goes half a season he's not a bad buy at $13.5M in today's market.

 

The only way I can see him going is with another piece in a trade for a real TOR pitcher. Even then I don't think that will happen because I don't see another club trading a TOR pitcher for Buch, even if we throw in another player like Holt or Hernandez. TOR pitchers are too valuable to be trading away for a question mark + one or two maybes.

 

Like him or not, I think we're stuck with him.

 

Not sure if I follow. You are agreeing that he has significant trade value, yet you say we are "stuck" with him? He doesn't have to be traded as part of a package for a better starter, and yes, you are obviously correct that Clay Buchholz & two utility players doesn't get you a better starter.

 

Maybe he could be traded as part of a package for a Wade Davis type. Maybe they could acquire a solid prospect for him that they could flip or keep. There are other options. I just see him as a change of scenery trade candidate and with the lack of starting pitching available, this might be the perfect time. Just a gut feeling, but I don't think he'll be back.

[S5Dewey]

Not sure if I follow. You are agreeing that he has significant trade value, yet you say we are "stuck" with him?

 

Sorry. My bad. I keep forgetting that voice inflection and facial expressions doesn't carry well on line. What I meant to say is that whether you like him or not I believe he'll be here next year.

 

As to the rest, we'll see. That's what these message boards are all about - differences of opinion. It's all good.

[Spudboy]

I'm a Buch basher with about 3 years of experience.

 

I wanted him gone before 2016 and did not want his option picked up then.

 

Now I say picking up the option was wise if not a no-brainer because he does provide #6 rotation insurance and inflated salaries make his $13.5 mil seem palatable.

 

I don't see him being traded unless somehow DD acquires some legit rotation depth.

 

It is my view that a team needs not only a number 6, but needs a number 7 and number 8 as well. Our MiLB starters are scrap pieces at best .

 

As much as this guy drives me nuts, he is more valuable right now than if he were shipped off for some inconsequential turd.

[Kimmi]

Ah well, good for him getting another 13 million. God help me, I still have a soft spot for the little bastard.

 

I do too. He's frustrating as all get out, but I like the guy as a pitcher. Most of the time.

[Dojji]

I can not STAND inconsistency in pitchers. Buchholz has been as inconsistent as they come for his entire career. Even when he's good you never know if he's going to pull up lame or suddenly Bad Buchholz shows up for 2-3 months and makes everyone else's job harder.

 

The man is a walking hole in the rotation and an outright liability to the franchise -- hell, half the time we needed to bring in a starting pitcher at the deadline over the last 8 years it's been to pitch innings that we went into the season expecting Buchholz to pitch. Add up the opportunity cost of all the talent we've had to deal for deadline starters during his tenure. He gets to eat some of the blame for losing those guys. How much more talent are we going to have to hemorrhage, over and over again, in order to bring in starting pitchers to do this guy's job before we stop freaking giving him that job and fill it some other way in the offseason when we can do so for just money?

 

I will be glad when he's gone. I don't know how he keeps fooling otherwise intelligent fans into buying the Good Buchholz hype -- even the ones that usually know not to ignore bad numbers or to cherry pick just the good numbers from a player's performance. But somehow Buchholz Is Different, apparently.

 

If the team is committed to keeping Buchholz purely as a depth option, that's one thing. And by that I mean the first starter pulled and the last starter put back whenever there's a logjam. If not, if they insist on rolling him out there as a full member of the rotation, especially at the expense of Wright, Pomeranz, or E-Rod, then I'm out. And when it comes to Buchholz and his Amazing Potential (Buchholz is, apparently, the only 32 year old top prospect in the world) I do not trust the Red Sox to handle it this way.

 

Just because we need more starting depth does not by any means indicate that that depth needs to be Buchholz. And I do agree that Buchholz or no we should probably be signing at least 1 more professional big league starter, nothing flashy just a 4-5 guy, to supplement the starting depth so we don't wind up with the Sean O'Sullivans of the world getting regular playing time. But if we're going after one of those guys we might as well pick up 2.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Dojji

[Eddy Ballgame]

I'm a Buch basher with about 3 years of experience.

 

I wanted him gone before 2016 and did not want his option picked up then.

 

Now I say picking up the option was wise if not a no-brainer because he does provide #6 rotation insurance and inflated salaries make his $13.5 mil seem palatable.

 

I don't see him being traded unless somehow DD acquires some legit rotation depth.

 

It is my view that a team needs not only a number 6, but needs a number 7 and number 8 as well. Our MiLB starters are scrap pieces at best .

 

As much as this guy drives me nuts, he is more valuable right now than if he were shipped off for some inconsequential turd.

 

I agree that they will absolutely need more rotation depth than they currently have, but I still think Buchholz gets moved, unless Pomeranz is okay with going to the pen.

[SoxHop]

Haven't been following the thread much. I was super happy that Wright got a shot this year and performed above expectations.

 

But the thing that is bugging me with him is the humidity/sweat thing. Is Wright only a player we can count on for a few months before it gets hot and the K-ball evades him due to moisture?

[Kimmi]

I can not STAND inconsistency in pitchers. Buchholz has been as inconsistent as they come for his entire career. Even when he's good you never know if he's going to pull up lame or suddenly Bad Buchholz shows up for 2-3 months and makes everyone else's job harder.

 

The man is a walking hole in the rotation and an outright liability to the franchise -- hell, half the time we needed to bring in a starting pitcher at the deadline over the last 8 years it's been to pitch innings that we went into the season expecting Buchholz to pitch. Add up the opportunity cost of all the talent we've had to deal for deadline starters during his tenure. He gets to eat some of the blame for losing those guys. How much more talent are we going to have to hemorrhage, over and over again, in order to bring in starting pitchers to do this guy's job before we stop freaking giving him that job and fill it some other way in the offseason when we can do so for just money?

 

I will be glad when he's gone. I don't know how he keeps fooling otherwise intelligent fans into buying the Good Buchholz hype -- even the ones that usually know not to ignore bad numbers or to cherry pick just the good numbers from a player's performance. But somehow Buchholz Is Different, apparently.

 

If the team is committed to keeping Buchholz purely as a depth option, that's one thing. And by that I mean the first starter pulled and the last starter put back whenever there's a logjam. If not, if they insist on rolling him out there as a full member of the rotation, especially at the expense of Wright, Pomeranz, or E-Rod, then I'm out. And when it comes to Buchholz and his Amazing Potential (Buchholz is, apparently, the only 32 year old top prospect in the world) I do not trust the Red Sox to handle it this way.

 

Just because we need more starting depth does not by any means indicate that that depth needs to be Buchholz. And I do agree that Buchholz or no we should probably be signing at least 1 more professional big league starter, nothing flashy just a 4-5 guy, to supplement the starting depth so we don't wind up with the Sean O'Sullivans of the world getting regular playing time. But if we're going after one of those guys we might as well pick up 2.

 

Dombrowski and Farrell have shown that they are not going to give someone a starting job or keep them in a starting role based on precedent, seniority, or salary. If Buchholz is pitching well enough to earn a spot in the rotation, he'll be there. If there are 5 others who are pitching better than he is, Buchholz will be moved to the pen. I really don't think you have to worry about Buchholz taking away a spot from Wright, Pomeranz, or ERod if those guys are pitching better.

[Dojji]

Yeah, we know they'll eventually bow to reality, and to be fair to them they're better at it than some, but how long is the leash going to be? How long to Pomeranz E-Rod or Wright cool their heels while this guy plays his inconsistent gotcha-game where he keeps tantalizing you with strong performances you know you can't count on?

[Bellhorn04]

Yeah, we know they'll eventually bow to reality, and to be fair to them they're better at it than some, but how long is the leash going to be? How long to Pomeranz E-Rod or Wright cool their heels while this guy plays his inconsistent gotcha-game where he keeps tantalizing you with strong performances you know you can't count on?

 

As sk7326 said, the ideal thing would be for Buchholz to start the year in the pen. When one of the other guys goes down, he goes in the rotation.

[Spudboy]

I made my comment under the assumtion that Buch would start the season in the pen.

[moonslav59]

So, we pay the $13M differential for Buch vs the buyout, but we couldn't pay $9M a year for Miller.

[Bellhorn04]

So, we pay the $13M differential for Buch vs the buyout, but we couldn't pay $9M a year for Miller.

 

It was $9 million * 4 for Miller = $36 million, for a reliever who was considered more of a setup guy at the time. And it was a mistake not to sign him.

 

$13 million for a starter is relatively cheap these days, especially when it's only a 1-year deal.

[Kimmi]

It was $9 million * 4 for Miller = $36 million, for a reliever who was considered more of a setup guy at the time. And it was a mistake not to sign him.

 

$13 million for a starter is relatively cheap these days, especially when it's only a 1-year deal.

 

IMO, there's a huge difference between a one year commitment and a four year commitment.

 

The fact that Clay's option is for one year is what's so appealing and sensible about it.

 

As far as Miller is concerned, he's been absolutely amazing. However, I would not have been on board for signing him for 4yrs/$36 mil last offseason. I just cannot agree with signing a relief pitcher to that kind of a contract.

[moonslav59]

It was $9 million * 4 for Miller = $36 million, for a reliever who was considered more of a setup guy at the time. And it was a mistake not to sign him.

 

$13 million for a starter is relatively cheap these days, especially when it's only a 1-year deal.

 

I was referring to the context of the idea Buch was probably going to be in the pen.

 

I think we all know, he'll end up starting some games. By the look of recent seasons and out need for 28 to 60+ starts from our 6th or lower starters, he's likely to get the chance to start 25+ games next season, and $13M is the going rate.

 

Nobody wants Miller starting again, except maybe the opposing teams.

 

[moonslav59]

IMO, there's a huge difference between a one year commitment and a four year commitment.

 

The fact that Clay's option is for one year is what's so appealing and sensible about it.

 

As far as Miller is concerned, he's been absolutely amazing. However, I would not have been on board for signing him for 4yrs/$36 mil last offseason. I just cannot agree with signing a relief pitcher to that kind of a contract.

 

I was for it.

 

It was less than what we are paying Kimbrel for one less year overall, and we wouldn't have had to give up 4 prospects to get him either.

[Spudboy]

Not resigning Miller was a f***-up.

 

Normally I agree with Kimmi on signing large and lengthy contracts for relievers.

 

Miller is one of the good ones with wipe-out stuff and plenty left in the tank.

 

He would have been the best pen arm on the Sox.

 

Oh well.

[Kimmi]

I was for it.

 

It was less than what we are paying Kimbrel for one less year overall, and we wouldn't have had to give up 4 prospects to get him either.

 

I have said since the beginning that Kimbrel was a huge overpay. IMO, Kimbrel would have been an overpay if we had to pay just one of either the salary or the prospects. Having to pay both made it a double whammy.

 

I am not unhappy about having Kimbrel on the team, but I have never liked his price.

[Dojji]

And yet in the same breath you guys lament that we lack elite relief.

 

Hello? If you want elite talent, pay for elite talent, and by that I mean meet the going market rate, not just what you feel you "should" pay. Lucchino thought Lester "should" be paid 4/70, look how well that worked out. W

 

Moonslav is right -- our parsimonious idea of what relievers "should" be paid, cost us a bill we had to pay in pure talent because we stiffed a guy over nothing but money. That's stupid, especially since we have lots of money.. We could have easily paid for Miller but wouldn't meet the price for Miller, and that meant we needed to panic-buy someone to cover the back end of the pen because we couldn't count on the aging Koji to cover our closer's role anymore. That's the price of being stingy with your bullpen expenses. And we're paying nearly as much for Kimbrel as we would have for Miller in pure cash, as well as the lost talent. And it's pure idiocy for a big market franchise to lose talent over crap like this.

 

if you don't want to pay what elite talent demands, don't complain that we don't have elite talent. That simple, folks. Revenue is up, and that means salaries are up. Adjust your expectations accordingly, or get used to everyone else having the best bullpen arms.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Dojji

[Kimmi]

Not resigning Miller was a f***-up.

 

Normally I agree with Kimmi on signing large and lengthy contracts for relievers.

 

Miller is one of the good ones with wipe-out stuff and plenty left in the tank.

 

He would have been the best pen arm on the Sox.

 

Oh well.

 

It does appear that not re-signing Miller was a mistake. However, relievers are such a fickle bunch that there was really no way to know that he would continue to be lights out. A large contract to a relief pitcher is still a huge risk, and not one worth taking, IMO.

 

We lost out on this one, but far more often than not, a team is better off not handing out large contracts to relievers.

[Kimmi]

And yet in the same breath you guys lament that we lack elite relief.

 

Hello? If you want elite talent, pay for elite talent, and by that I mean meet the going market rate, not just what you feel you "should" pay. Lucchino thought Lester "should" be paid 4/70, look how well that worked out. We wouldn't meet the price for Miller, and that meant we needed to panic-buy someone because we couldn't count on the aging Koji to cover our closer's role anymore.

 

if you don't want to pay what elite talent demands, don't complain that we don't have elite talent.

 

Not too complicated. I don't see the difficulty here.

 

There are better ways to build a bullpen than spending a fortune on them. That money is better spent elsewhere. Your best relievers are often the inexpensive guys that come out of nowhere.

 

I have not been complaining about the lack of elite relief. I have said that this team is more or less good to go without any big moves. Make a few tweaks to the bullpen. We don't need Chapman or Jansen.

 

And we don't need Encarnacion either.

[Dojji]

Better ways like throwing Guerra, Margot and others at a closer because you didn't have one and wouldn't pay for the bird in the hand?

 

Come on, you're expecting DD to make a bullpen out of smoke and mirrors, and then complaining when a pen made with a limited budget is limited. Yes, relievers can be found cheap who will be effective, especially over the short term. No, that doesn't mean building a championship strategy out of consistently doing this is anything other than an absolutely stupid idea.

 

El cheapo bullpens are not consistent, sometimes they're great if you're really lucky, but a perennial contender would rather be good than lucky. Small markets on a run can get away with going cheap on the pen because they can afford to only get lucky a few times in any given generation. Champions need consistent relief, and consistent relief costs money.

 

TLDR, if you don't want to spend money on relief, don't be surprised if the bullpen is your greatest liability.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Dojji

[Bellhorn04]

And yet in the same breath you guys lament that we lack elite relief.

 

Hello? If you want elite talent, pay for elite talent, and by that I mean meet the going market rate, not just what you feel you "should" pay. Lucchino thought Lester "should" be paid 4/70, look how well that worked out. W

 

Moonslav is right -- our parsimonious idea of what relievers "should" be paid, cost us a bill we had to pay in pure talent because we stiffed a guy over nothing but money. That's stupid, especially since we have lots of money.. We could have easily paid for Miller but wouldn't meet the price for Miller, and that meant we needed to panic-buy someone to cover the back end of the pen because we couldn't count on the aging Koji to cover our closer's role anymore. That's the price of being stingy with your bullpen expenses. And we're paying nearly as much for Kimbrel as we would have for Miller in pure cash, as well as the lost talent. And it's pure idiocy for a big market franchise to lose talent over crap like this.

 

if you don't want to pay what elite talent demands, don't complain that we don't have elite talent. That simple, folks. Revenue is up, and that means salaries are up. Adjust your expectations accordingly, or get used to everyone else having the best bullpen arms.

 

A few points about Miller:

 

1) 2014 was his breakout year. In 2012 and 2013 he was just a good reliever. In 2014 he became an excellent one. But that was the only excellent season of his career to that point.

 

2) Up until 2014 Miller was not a closer. He had 1 career save prior to 2015.

 

3) We were bidding against the Yankees. It's kind of humorous to think that because they paid him 4/36, an offer of 4/40 by us would have 'gotten it done', as if the Yankees would have just turned tail and walked away.

[Kimmi]

Better ways like throwing Guerra, Margot and others at a closer because you didn't have one and wouldn't pay for the bird in the hand?

 

Come on, you're expecting DD to make a bullpen out of smoke and mirrors, and then complaining when a pen made with a limited budget is limited. Yes, relievers can be found cheap who will be effective, especially over the short term. No, that doesn't mean building a championship strategy out of consistently doing this is anything other than an absolutely stupid idea.

 

El cheapo bullpens are not consistent, sometimes they're great if you're really lucky, but a perennial contender would rather be good than lucky. Small markets on a run can get away with going cheap on the pen because they can afford to only get lucky a few times in any given generation. Champions need consistent relief, and consistent relief costs money.

 

TLDR, if you don't want to spend money on relief, don't be surprised if the bullpen is your greatest liability.

 

My philosophy is to assemble as many BP arms as you reasonably can, and hope someone sticks. Usually, a few someones will. That's not to say that you don't spend any money on your BP. It's to say that you don't hand out huge contracts to relievers.

 

If you're going to spend that kind of money/resources on a player, there are better ways to to spend it. And I'm not downgrading the importance of bullpens at all. I just think that there is a better way to build one in terms of the overall team building philosophy.

[Dojji]

See that's stupid, because it's an example of limited thinking. Saying that there's no situations that you'd spend big money on relief just means you're not creative enough to imagine situations where elite relief is important enough to pay big money for. After this last postseason, and especially Cleveland's campaign through that postseason... let's just say I can think of a few.

 

Worse, these uncreative policy decisions have an opportunity cost that is usually recoverable in the very short term only by shedding prospects. Those innings are going to be pitched, they'd better be pitched by someone good. If you "only" get 1-2 good arms out of your "scattershot grab bag" strategy, you're going to be bleeding talent to replace relievers with better pitchers you could have paid nothing but money for in the offseason. That has consequences for a team that wants to build a more or less permanently winning team. If spending money in the offseason stops you from spending talent in the season to accomplish the same damn thing, then it's a good use of money even if it is the dreaded "big contract for a reliever."

[Bellhorn04]

One interesting thing about closers and relievers is that their value can skyrocket in the postseason-especially with all the off-days that gives the big guns extra time to recover. It was an eye-opener to see how much Theo was willing to give up to rent Chapman.

[Dojji]

A few points about Miller:

 

1) 2014 was his breakout year. In 2012 and 2013 he was just a good reliever. In 2014 he became an excellent one. But that was the only excellent season of his career to that point.

 

2) Up until 2014 Miller was not a closer. He had 1 career save prior to 2015.

 

Not particularly relevant. We knew he was elite in 2014, and we also knew two other things you are neglecting to mention, 1: Koji is our closer, 2: Koji is old and could break down at any time (in fact he was heavily predicted to break down in midseason 2013). Lining Miller up behind Koji and grooming him to take over as closer was a sensible move, and one that was worth spreading some green to make happen. Once a pitcher breaks out like Miller did, they rarely go straight back into the toilet, usually it takes 2-3 years for the league to really get a handle on them again. It would have been a good use of money, and it would have precluded any need for the Kimbrel trade, if you think that was a bad idea.

 

Ultimately the Yankee thing is irrelevant. If we put up a competitive offer it's ultimately up to Miller. I'm not aware we did make that offer though, and that forced us to panic-buy Kimbrel later on when Koji predictably broke down (the only surprise was that he lasted as long as he did), which is stupid.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Dojji