2017 Rotation

[moonslav59]

I think he has a bounce back year. I don't expect him to with the CY, but he should be better than last year. Having Sale at the top of the rotation will certainly help. I just hope Sale can get on the same page as Leon or CV early in the season.

 

I actually expect a top 5 finish in the Cy Young for Price.

[Emp9]

Presumably the Red Sox do want something in return for Buch, so you have to factor that in along with his salary.

 

yeah I wonder who the Sox wanted in return? To me it's a perfect opportunity to cut some payroll and net a mid-level prospect.

[moonslav59]

yeah I wonder who the Sox wanted in return? To me it's a perfect opportunity to cut some payroll and net a mid-level prospect.

 

We shouldn't have to hand him away or pay part of his salary, but I'm not expecting a very good player or prospect.

 

Bartolo Colon got $12.5M and cost no prospects or players. Buch is younger, has more upside and is in a "contract year", but he also has a significant downside or "floor".

 

Maybe we can expect someone like a Victor Diaz and/or Josh Pennington replacement-like prospect in return.

[OH FOY]

I wouldn't do nothing at this point. Wait for Off-Season to continue. Players get hurt cutting bread. Wait for Spring Training for injuries to Pitchers, tons get injured at that point. Teams get more desperate, if they lose a Starter, to injury in Off-Season.

Wait, see what happens. Patience is a virtue.

[mvp 78]

It's almost impossible to subtract 15 promising prospects and not suffer to some degree.

 

I know we will not suck. We can spend our way out of some of the holes in our future rosters, but having cost-controlled players like Betts, Bogey, JBJ, Swi/Vaz, Thornburg, Ross, Barnes, etc... really opens the door for big signings.

 

I don't see us having a core of young players like this in 4-8 years. We might have Devers, Groome and a couple surprises, but nothing like this.

 

It's going to be different in 4 years. We will suffer some effects from this trade in 4 years. It's my opinion, but I have no doubts.

 

 

They can always trade their own guys to get prospects and refill the war chest the way the Yanks did.

[a700hitter]

They can always trade their own guys to get prospects and refill the war chest the way the Yanks did.

There is never a shortage of prospects. If you have good scouts, there should be no problem with restocking. Major league top line starting pitching is the rarest of commodities.

[Hugh2]

There is never a shortage of prospects. If you have good scouts, there should be no problem with restocking. Major league top line starting pitching is the rarest of commodities.

 

These is a very ignorant comment. You can have the best scouts in the world and do ok, but the CBA agreements of now and the one that took place after 2011 have seriously hurt the Sox in drafting talent. They don't have money to throw around in later rounds, and they no longer have the same avenues for bringing in international talent.

 

Good scouting is very important, and with these retraints its as important as ever. But it is a problem, it's not an EASY thing to scout and bring in future MLB star power when you are picking in the back end of the first round and/or losing your draft picks. Those are very real concerns going forward.

[Hugh2]

They can always trade their own guys to get prospects and refill the war chest the way the Yanks did.

 

This is what I was thinking, especially with the return you can get on relief pitching. Teams are even starting to draft pitchers and stick them into relief roles immediately

[mvp 78]

I think it's really hard to have a full prospect stash AND compete every year. I think there will be an ebb and flow to how many of our prospects are in the top 100 and that's not necessarily a bad thing if we are moving on from the right prospects. If they really believe in Devers, it makes sense to keep him around. The key is knowing who to deal and to attain players that can perform in Boston.

[harmony]

We shouldn't have to hand him away or pay part of his salary, but I'm not expecting a very good player or prospect.

 

Bartolo Colon got $12.5M and cost no prospects or players. Buch is younger, has more upside and is in a "contract year", but he also has a significant downside or "floor".

 

Maybe we can expect someone like a Victor Diaz and/or Josh Pennington replacement-like prospect in return.

Even with his spectacular stretch in 2015, over the past three seasons Clay Buchholz has an ERA of 4.60 and an ERA+ of 93 in only 67 starts (and 16 relief appearances).

 

Over the same period Bartolo Colon has an ERA of 3.90 and an ERA+ of 97 while, more importantly, making 95 starts (and three relief appearances).

 

I am generally a conservative investor who views Clay Buchholz as a volatile stock.

[moonslav59]

They can always trade their own guys to get prospects and refill the war chest the way the Yanks did.

 

You mean when we start to suck, like the Yanks started to, we can have a fire sale too?

[moonslav59]

There is never a shortage of prospects. If you have good scouts, there should be no problem with restocking. Major league top line starting pitching is the rarest of commodities.

 

We had a shortage of prospects from about 2009 to 2011. We had built it up by 2012, but none were ML ready. Don't expect another 2011 draft either. We had 4 first round picks and got Betts in the 5th round.

 

How did we do in 2012 anyways? Coincidence?

 

How many rings did we win in that period?

[moonslav59]

Even with his spectacular stretch in 2015, over the past three seasons Clay Buchholz has an ERA of 4.60 and an ERA+ of 93 in only 67 starts (and 16 relief appearances).

 

Over the same period Bartolo Colon has an ERA of 3.90 and an ERA+ of 97 while, more importantly, making 95 starts (and three relief appearances).

 

I am generally a conservative investor who views Clay Buchholz as a volatile stock.

 

I agree, and I meant the Colon reference to temper anyone's views that Buch is going to land us a Kopech or even a Basabe or something.

 

My belief, and I could be wrong, is that as the winter wears on, and all available SP'ers are gone, some GM is going to think they are a solid SP'er away from seriously contending. They will know that Buch is no sure thing. They will know he could suck, but they will also know there's a pretty significant chance he can put togther a very good contract season. For that, they will overpay, but again, I'm not expecting to get back a Kopech or Soler or maybe even a Basabe type prospect.

[S5Dewey]

I agree, and I meant the Colon reference to temper anyone's views that Buch is going to land us a Kopech or even a Basabe or something.

 

My belief, and I could be wrong, is that as the winter wears on, and all available SP'ers are gone, some GM is going to think they are a solid SP'er away from seriously contending. They will know that Buch is no sure thing. They will know he could suck, but they will also know there's a pretty significant chance he can put togther a very good contract season. For that, they will overpay, but again, I'm not expecting to get back a Kopech or Soler or maybe even a Basabe type prospect.

 

I'm more optimistic than you are as to what we can get for Buch. This team is realllly dealing from a position of strength in any negotiations involving Buch in that there's nothing we NEED.... ok.. other than a 3Bman. I can see a GM who feels that he's one solid starter away from the PS holding his nose and paying dearly for Buch, maybe with a solid 3B or maybe with two solid minor leaguers with a future to help rebuild what we've traded away.

And if not.... we keep him. At the risk of being redundant, "You can't have too much pitching".

[mvp 78]

You mean when we start to suck, like the Yanks started to, we can have a fire sale too?

 

Or just trade Bogey/Betts/JBJ when they only have one year left on their contracts. You don't need a fire sale to restock your farm.

[harmony]

I'm more optimistic than you are as to what we can get for Buch. This team is realllly dealing from a position of strength in any negotiations involving Buch in that there's nothing we NEED.... ok.. other than a 3Bman. I can see a GM who feels that he's one solid starter away from the PS holding his nose and paying dearly for Buch, maybe with a solid 3B or maybe with two solid minor leaguers with a future to help rebuild what we've traded away.

And if not.... we keep him. At the risk of being redundant, "You can't have too much pitching".

Another team's "need" for a Clay Buchholz-level starter may not be as great as the Red Sox need to get and stay under the luxury tax threshold.

 

Most clubs can send out to the mound several starters who have posted a low 90s ERA+ over the past three seasons. On the other hand, the Red Sox cannot simply cut payroll by voiding contracts. The Sox could choose to exceed the luxury tax threshold for a third straight year but under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement would face onerous sanctions not limited to monetary penalties.

 

I don't see the Red Sox in a position of strength in negotiations.

[Emp9]

Or just trade Bogey/Betts/JBJ when they only have one year left on their contracts. You don't need a fire sale to restock your farm.

 

Hanley is a good candidate for this when & if the time cones. I mean, just look at what the Yanks got back for trading away 2 months of Beltran.

[S5Dewey]

Another team's "need" for a Clay Buchholz-level starter may not be as great as the Red Sox need to get and stay under the luxury tax threshold.

 

Most clubs can send out to the mound several starters who have posted a low 90s ERA+ over the past three seasons. On the other hand, the Red Sox cannot simply cut payroll by voiding contracts. The Sox could choose to exceed the luxury tax threshold for a third straight year but under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement would face onerous sanctions not limited to monetary penalties.

 

I don't see the Red Sox in a position of strength in negotiations.

 

We'll agree to disagree on that then. IMO GM's are egocentric in that they're only interested in what will help their team. There'll be someone who'll be willing to take on the risk of Buch's fragility if it could mean the difference between playing baseball in October and playing golf then.

 

I don't see DD giving him away for less than something of high value in return. It's not like he's a position player. Again, from nearly everyone's point of view, 'You can't have too much pitching". Even when it pertains to the Sox.

[moonslav59]

Another team's "need" for a Clay Buchholz-level starter may not be as great as the Red Sox need to get and stay under the luxury tax threshold.

 

Most clubs can send out to the mound several starters who have posted a low 90s ERA+ over the past three seasons. On the other hand, the Red Sox cannot simply cut payroll by voiding contracts. The Sox could choose to exceed the luxury tax threshold for a third straight year but under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement would face onerous sanctions not limited to monetary penalties.

 

I don't see the Red Sox in a position of strength in negotiations.

 

We can probably cut Abad, who is out of options anyways and be close to under the limit.

 

We don't have to trade Buch to get under. There's no GM holding that over our heads, at least any where near what the other GM needs (SP'ing).

 

Besides, we could trade Buch in August and get under the limit.

[Jack Flap]

Other teams are aware of Buch's history...they know he can be relied upon for a half-season of effective pitching per year at most, and that at age 32 he's unlikely to be any more consistent or stay healthier than he has in the past.

 

I think we can get something back, but my expectations are low.

[moonslav59]

Or just trade Bogey/Betts/JBJ when they only have one year left on their contracts. You don't need a fire sale to restock your farm.

 

True, maybe I took your like the Yankees comment too literally.

 

We could trade Betts then re-sign him- like the Yanks did with Chapman, and like we should have done with Miller.

[Slasher9]

Another team's "need" for a Clay Buchholz-level starter may not be as great as the Red Sox need to get and stay under the luxury tax threshold.

 

Most clubs can send out to the mound several starters who have posted a low 90s ERA+ over the past three seasons. On the other hand, the Red Sox cannot simply cut payroll by voiding contracts. The Sox could choose to exceed the luxury tax threshold for a third straight year but under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement would face onerous sanctions not limited to monetary penalties.

 

I don't see the Red Sox in a position of strength in negotiations.

 

can you provide the link that says the Red Sox are in great need to get and stay under the luxury tax threshold?

thanks.

[moonslav59]

We'll agree to disagree on that then. IMO GM's are egocentric in that they're only interested in what will help their team. There'll be someone who'll be willing to take on the risk of Buch's fragility if it could mean the difference between playing baseball in October and playing golf then.

 

I don't see DD giving him away for less than something of high value in return. It's not like he's a position player. Again, from nearly everyone's point of view, 'You can't have too much pitching". Even when it pertains to the Sox.

 

I don't see anyone refusing a trade out of some feeling they can do better, because they can hold it over DD's head that Henry might have to pay $1M in luxury tax because we're going over by $2M keeping Buch.

[moonslav59]

can you provide the link that says the Red Sox are in great need to get and stay under the luxury tax threshold?

thanks.

 

Actually, DD has said he's under no pressure to stay under the limit, but I'm sure it is a priority, especially, if we are really close and we want to do some wheeling and dealing in next year's excellent FA market.

[S5Dewey]

True, maybe I took your like the Yankees comment too literally.

 

We could trade Betts then re-sign him- like the Yanks did with Chapman, and like we should have done with Miller.

 

It could happen, but I'm always leery of letting a good player get out of our control. There was talk of that with Lester too and we all know how that worked out.

[harmony]

We'll agree to disagree on that then. IMO GM's are egocentric in that they're only interested in what will help their team. There'll be someone who'll be willing to take on the risk of Buch's fragility if it could mean the difference between playing baseball in October and playing golf then.

 

I don't see DD giving him away for less than something of high value in return. It's not like he's a position player. Again, from nearly everyone's point of view, 'You can't have too much pitching". Even when it pertains to the Sox.

By the same token, a horrendous stretch by Clay Buchholz "could mean the difference between playing baseball in October and playing golf then." And Buchholz has experienced horrendous stretches.

 

That's the rub that limits Buchholz's value.

[harmony]

can you provide the link that says the Red Sox are in great need to get and stay under the luxury tax threshold?

thanks.

http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2016/12/red_sox_trying_to_stay_under_l.html

 

https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-red-sox/2016/12/05/red-sox-conscious-of-new-luxury-tax-penalties-this-offseason

 

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/12/07/massarotti-dombrowski-now-tasked-with-shedding-salary-to-get-red-sox-under-luxury-tax/

 

http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/20161206/luxury-tax-penalties-dissuade-red-sox-from-offering-extensions-to-betts-bogaerts

 

http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/boston-red-sox-taking-stricter-luxury-tax-penalties-consideration-offseason

[moonslav59]

It could happen, but I'm always leery of letting a good player get out of our control. There was talk of that with Lester too and we all know how that worked out.

 

I don't think we really wanted Lester. We bid on him to save face.

 

When you look back, outbidding the Cubs would look like a financially good deal right now, in light of what Price and others got the following year.

[moonslav59]

By the same token, a horrendous stretch by Clay Buchholz "could mean the difference between playing baseball in October and playing golf then." And Buchholz has experienced horrendous stretches.

 

That's the rub that limits Buchholz's value.

 

I've never doubted his floor is not only very low, but it is more probable than most quality pitchers.

 

A one year contract is going to be worth the risk to some GM not encumbered by the luxury tax and in great need of something...ANYTHING! There just isn't enough quality pitching available these days. The prices GMs are paying these days are the evidence.

 

Big risk- no doubt.

 

High upside- already proven 2-3 times in his career. Something not many pitchers have proven.

[S5Dewey]

By the same token, a horrendous stretch by Clay Buchholz "could mean the difference between playing baseball in October and playing golf then." And Buchholz has experienced horrendous stretches.

 

That's the rub that limits Buchholz's value.

 

Ok. Now let's look at the flip side of that. Buch is also a guy who can put up a dozen W's for a team in a half season, without accumulating a lot of L's. And when he goes down those 12 W's are still there. One of the good things about Buch is that when he goes down it's because he's injured and everyone knows it. It's not like he just loses his stuff and the team keeps running him out there hoping he'll suddenly get it back. The trick is knowing when to stop using him - and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know when to do it, based on his history.

 

I agree that his value is limited. If it weren't for those horrendous stretches he's be making David Price money.... and deserving it. That's his limiting factor.