2017 Rotation

[Kimmi]

He is also already a great grandfather. His baby is younger than his great grandchild

 

That is insane.

 

So doesn't that make his new baby a great, great uncle to the great grandchild? LOL

[Hugh2]

I think he's more valuable to the Sox as a #5/swing guy then as trade bait.

 

Possibly, an expensive one at that but you never know what you'll get out of Clay. He could give us one real good half and help this team out, but if the opportunity presents itself I think they trade him or will at least try to.

[Hugh2]

The Red Sox are bumping up against the luxury tax threshold if they're not already over for the third straight year. Sanctions under the new CBA add to the 50 percent tax a potential loss of draft picks and international signing money. I suspect the Red Sox want to avoid those penalties and still have budget space to make mid-season moves.

 

http://www.telegram.com/sports/20161205/dombrowski-red-sox-will-try-to-stay-under-luxury-tax-threshold

 

Clay Buchholz currently accounts for $13.5 million of the 2017 budget although projections suggest that the 32-year-old righthander has limited, if any, surplus value with a projected 2017 WAR of 1.7*, which this year was valued at $13.5 million.

 

Bartolo Colon, with a projected 2017 WAR of 2.2, landed a one-year, $12.5 million contract. Andrew Cashner, with a projected 2017 WAR of 1.2 (and a higher WAR than Buchholz over the past four seasons), landed a one-year, $10 million contract. R.A. Dickey, with a projected 2017 WAR of 1.8, signed a one-year, $8 million contract. Neither Colon, Cashner nor Dickey cost his new team a draft pick or existing talent.

 

The Red Sox should expect little in return if a trade partner assumes the entire $13.5 million owed Buchholz in 2017. A better return may come if the Sox pay part of the salary although that contribution will count against the Red Sox luxury tax threshold.

 

We'll see whether the Red Sox avoid harsh penalties by coming in under the luxury tax threshold for the first time in three years.

 

* the WAR projections are from Steamer, which revised the Buchholz projection down to 0.5 following the Chris Sale trade. I use the original 1.7 WAR projection for this valuation.

 

They don't have to find a team to eat the whole contract, they could easily kick in 3-6 million. They also have other avenues for getting under the luxury tax.

 

The Sox have gone over the limit before, they just don't like to live there like NYY or the LAD, they can easily reset next year. I still think they try to get under this year but even if they don't they are at no risk of losing a draft pick because they aren't that far over.

[Spudboy]

Possibly, an expensive one at that but you never know what you'll get out of Clay. He could give us one real good half and help this team out, but if the opportunity presents itself I think they trade him or will at least try to.

 

I don't disagree with you Hugh. But one can look at Buch's presence on the roster another way.

 

First I will state yet again my disdain for spending huge money on athletes. And I am one of Buch's biggest detractors.

 

I sort of see Buch as the Drew Bledsoe of the Sox. He is sort of a Cadillac in the garage, of sorts.

 

He can make quality starts, and he can pitch out of the pen with multiple innings if needed. It's not unlikely that he can pitch 170-200 or so innings. To me, that is cost efficiency compared to what we get out of Kimbrel for roughly the same money. 60-75 innings?

 

Also, for some reason everyone is conveniently forgetting how awful things can get when this team does not have quality starter depth. It's not like this team has an embarrassment of riches with their starters.

Yes, we have seven at present. But that often changes overnight during the season. One guy goes down and then we have six. And so on.

 

I understand the desire to move him for economic purposes or to help replenish the minors with talent.

 

I say keep Buch because there is a strong likely hood that he will be productive in 2017. It has been offered that he could be replaced with a less costly option. Maybe. But I say why bother? We know what we have in Buch. He may look like an expensive luxury now, but when we need him he will be there.

 

Ugh, I can't believe that I just wrote all that about a guy I have not wanted on this team for two years.

[Foe-Jarmer]

This is the first time in a long while where we have a surplus of good-great pitching. I just look back at past seasons where starting pitching was our #1 priority and cringe at trading away our newfound surplus for fear that we will likely end up needing those extra 2 quality starters at some point in the season. It's a tough decision to make for sure and you have to consider we've gone into win now mode. What do we gain from trading a starter now that helps us in 2017? Unless you're gonna flip the prospects at the deadline, not much. It's probably more valuable to us to hold on to everyone right now. Let ST decide who of the remaining 4 lands the last 2 spots and slot the other 2 in the BP.

 

Even though I do think we will trade a starter, I'm still hesitant to say it's a good idea. All of them would do fine in the BP and it affords us a ton of flexibility. Obviously it's an insurance plan against injuries, but we can also have a short leash on our 4/5th starters if an implosion occurs. Additionally, extra starters are invaluable at the deadline once we have a much better picture of our team and its needs for a strong playoff push.

[Spudboy]

This is the first time in a long while where we have a surplus of good-great pitching. I just look back at past seasons where starting pitching was our #1 priority and cringe at trading away our newfound surplus for fear that we will likely end up needing those extra 2 quality starters at some point in the season. It's a tough decision to make for sure and you have to consider we've gone into win now mode. What do we gain from trading a starter now that helps us in 2017? Unless you're gonna flip the prospects at the deadline, not much. It's probably more valuable to us to hold on to everyone right now. Let ST decide who of the remaining 4 lands the last 2 spots and slot the other 2 in the BP.

 

Even though I do think we will trade a starter, I'm still hesitant to say it's a good idea. All of them would do fine in the BP and it affords us a ton of flexibility. Obviously it's an insurance plan against injuries, but we can also have a short leash on our 4/5th starters if an implosion occurs. Additionally, extra starters are invaluable at the deadline once we have a much better picture of our team and its needs for a strong playoff push.

 

I like this post.

[Hugh2]

I don't disagree with you Hugh. But one can look at Buch's presence on the roster another way.

 

First I will state yet again my disdain for spending huge money on athletes. And I am one of Buch's biggest detractors.

 

I sort of see Buch as the Drew Bledsoe of the Sox. He is sort of a Cadillac in the garage, of sorts.

 

He can make quality starts, and he can pitch out of the pen with multiple innings if needed. It's not unlikely that he can pitch 170-200 or so innings. To me, that is cost efficiency compared to what we get out of Kimbrel for roughly the same money. 60-75 innings?

 

Also, for some reason everyone is conveniently forgetting how awful things can get when this team does not have quality starter depth. It's not like this team has an embarrassment of riches with their starters.

Yes, we have seven at present. But that often changes overnight during the season. One guy goes down and then we have six. And so on.

 

I understand the desire to move him for economic purposes or to help replenish the minors with talent.

 

I say keep Buch because there is a strong likely hood that he will be productive in 2017. It has been offered that he could be replaced with a less costly option. Maybe. But I say why bother? We know what we have in Buch. He may look like an expensive luxury now, but when we need him he will be there.

 

Ugh, I can't believe that I just wrote all that about a guy I have not wanted on this team for two years.

 

I agree with this 100% which is why I said the Sox are negotiating from a position of weakness, because they don't have to trade him. They can walk away from the bargaining table. That was my main gripe, Clay could be useful as you said but so could getting under the luxury tax. I've moved on from Clay more than once, but it does seem a little less worrisome when the success of the Sox pitching relies on about a dozen other guys before him. He's a costly depth option that may be useful or he could be traded if a team bites.

[Foe-Jarmer]

I don't disagree with you Hugh. But one can look at Buch's presence on the roster another way.

 

First I will state yet again my disdain for spending huge money on athletes. And I am one of Buch's biggest detractors.

 

I sort of see Buch as the Drew Bledsoe of the Sox. He is sort of a Cadillac in the garage, of sorts.

 

He can make quality starts, and he can pitch out of the pen with multiple innings if needed. It's not unlikely that he can pitch 170-200 or so innings. To me, that is cost efficiency compared to what we get out of Kimbrel for roughly the same money. 60-75 innings?

 

Also, for some reason everyone is conveniently forgetting how awful things can get when this team does not have quality starter depth. It's not like this team has an embarrassment of riches with their starters.

Yes, we have seven at present. But that often changes overnight during the season. One guy goes down and then we have six. And so on.

 

I understand the desire to move him for economic purposes or to help replenish the minors with talent.

 

I say keep Buch because there is a strong likely hood that he will be productive in 2017. It has been offered that he could be replaced with a less costly option. Maybe. But I say why bother? We know what we have in Buch. He may look like an expensive luxury now, but when we need him he will be there.

 

Ugh, I can't believe that I just wrote all that about a guy I have not wanted on this team for two years.

 

I agree. It's not like we're debating spending 14M to bring a guy in and relegate him to the BP or spot start. He's already here and there's a solid chance we'll end up needing him in a more important capacity so why make the effort to get rid of him? Besides, his trade value isn't great right now anyway. I doubt anyone will take his entire salary and even if they do, the prospect we get in return probably won't be useful. He's more valuable to us as on the team than he is otherwise.

[Spudboy]

It will be interesting to see what if anything DD does about this question.

 

I say start the season as is and go from there.

 

Unless, of course, some team blows DD away.

[Bellhorn04]

Clay's market value could also increase in the spring if another team loses one of their starters to injury.

[harmony]

Clay's market value could also increase in the spring if another team loses one of their starters to injury.

The flip side is that his value could drop if Clay Buchholz suffers yet another injury.

 

Risks abound.

[S5Dewey]

The flip side is that his value could drop if Clay Buchholz suffers yet another injury.

 

Yes. And water is wet. Any player's value would drop if they suffer an injury. What would happen to the value of KFelix if his arm blew up or to Cano if he had an injury that had a strong chance of reoccurance that sidelined him for an extended period?

 

The good news for Sox fans is that we can absorb a loss like losing Buch to injury and keep on tickin' like a Timex watch while many teams couldn't.

[cp176]

I don't disagree with you Hugh. But one can look at Buch's presence on the roster another way.

 

First I will state yet again my disdain for spending huge money on athletes. And I am one of Buch's biggest detractors.

 

I sort of see Buch as the Drew Bledsoe of the Sox. He is sort of a Cadillac in the garage, of sorts.

 

He can make quality starts, and he can pitch out of the pen with multiple innings if needed. It's not unlikely that he can pitch 170-200 or so innings. To me, that is cost efficiency compared to what we get out of Kimbrel for roughly the same money. 60-75 innings?

 

Also, for some reason everyone is conveniently forgetting how awful things can get when this team does not have quality starter depth. It's not like this team has an embarrassment of riches with their starters.

Yes, we have seven at present. But that often changes overnight during the season. One guy goes down and then we have six. And so on.

 

I understand the desire to move him for economic purposes or to help replenish the minors with talent.

 

I say keep Buch because there is a strong likely hood that he will be productive in 2017. It has been offered that he could be replaced with a less costly option. Maybe. But I say why bother? We know what we have in Buch. He may look like an expensive luxury now, but when we need him he will be there.

 

Ugh, I can't believe that I just wrote all that about a guy I have not wanted on this team for two years.

 

Before you know it Spud, you'll be on the Sandoval weight train - whoops, meant to say freight train!

[cp176]

I don't disagree with you Hugh. But one can look at Buch's presence on the roster another way.

 

First I will state yet again my disdain for spending huge money on athletes. And I am one of Buch's biggest detractors.

 

I sort of see Buch as the Drew Bledsoe of the Sox. He is sort of a Cadillac in the garage, of sorts.

 

He can make quality starts, and he can pitch out of the pen with multiple innings if needed. It's not unlikely that he can pitch 170-200 or so innings. To me, that is cost efficiency compared to what we get out of Kimbrel for roughly the same money. 60-75 innings?

 

Also, for some reason everyone is conveniently forgetting how awful things can get when this team does not have quality starter depth. It's not like this team has an embarrassment of riches with their starters.

Yes, we have seven at present. But that often changes overnight during the season. One guy goes down and then we have six. And so on.

 

I understand the desire to move him for economic purposes or to help replenish the minors with talent.

 

I say keep Buch because there is a strong likely hood that he will be productive in 2017. It has been offered that he could be replaced with a less costly option. Maybe. But I say why bother? We know what we have in Buch. He may look like an expensive luxury now, but when we need him he will be there.

 

Ugh, I can't believe that I just wrote all that about a guy I have not wanted on this team for two years.

 

I'm with you on the Bucksnorter too. Looks like Kelly is still in the mix so the way I see it you have to keep both the little bastards. Have to keep the twins together. I wonder if he kept any of the "we're all aces t-shirts"? Closer to being appropriate this time around.

[harmony]

Yes. And water is wet. Any player's value would drop if they suffer an injury. What would happen to the value of KFelix if his arm blew up or to Cano if he had an injury that had a strong chance of reoccurance that sidelined him for an extended period?

 

The good news for Sox fans is that we can absorb a loss like losing Buch to injury and keep on tickin' like a Timex watch while many teams couldn't.

Seattle could probably survive the loss of righthander Nate Karns, whose 2017 Steamer WAR projection of 1.7 matches that of Clay Buchholz before the latter's projection was revised downward following the Chris Sale trade.

 

As things stand now the Red Sox are the American League favorites but the Sox will have competition.

[S5Dewey]

Seattle could probably survive the loss of righthander Nate Karns, whose 2017 Steamer WAR projection of 1.7 matches that of Clay Buchholz before the latter's projection was revised downward following the Chris Sale trade.

 

I doubt that. The M's have two... maybe three... pitchers with any experience and no depth in their staff. Buch is the kind of guy they should be looking to take a chance and pick up. Their #'s 4 & 5 are a real crap shoot.

The Sox OTOH are looking at a situation where Buch is very expendable. Losing the M's #4 on their depth chart is a lot different from the Sox losing Buch.

[moonslav59]

Anybody who might acquire Buch would know about the injury risk, a risk of a prolonged struggle or just plain have a full bad season, but they'd be trading for the chance of getting the good Buch. Unlike many other high risk-reward pitchers out there, Buch has actually had several extended stretches of good to HOF level pitching.

 

In today's market, he'd get more than $13.5M/1, but not so much more that we could expect a great return.

 

Buch has a lot of value to this team. If this year goes like past years, we'll be needing more than 6 starters. If we don't, I'm pretty sure he'd help out a lot in the pen, at least until Smith is back to form, but $13.5M is a lot to pay for that role, and if getting under the luxury tax is a significant priority, it makes the most sense to me to trade Buch, but maybe waiting until Smith returns would be the best timing. By then, we may also know if we need a good 6 & 7 starter.

[moonslav59]

I doubt that. The M's have two... maybe three... pitchers with any experience and no depth in their staff. Buch is the kind of guy they should be looking to take a chance and pick up. Their #'s 4 & 5 are a real crap shoot.

The Sox OTOH are looking at a situation where Buch is very expendable. Losing the M's #4 on their depth chart is a lot different from the Sox losing Buch.

 

Hill knows this. He has wanted Buch from the Sox, because he knows he could have a great year and get hem to the playoffs. He also knows he could suck or get injured, so he doesn't want to give up much to get him. He's got a point, but I don't think he values Buch as much as the Sox and I do.

 

[harmony]

Anybody who might acquire Buch would know about the injury risk, a risk of a prolonged struggle or just plain have a full bad season, but they'd be trading for the chance of getting the good Buch. Unlike many other high risk-reward pitchers out there, Buch has actually had several extended stretches of good to HOF level pitching.

 

In today's market, he'd get more than $13.5M/1, but not so much more that we could expect a great return.

 

Buch has a lot of value to this team. If this year goes like past years, we'll be needing more than 6 starters. If we don't, I'm pretty sure he'd help out a lot in the pen, at least until Smith is back to form, but $13.5M is a lot to pay for that role, and if getting under the luxury tax is a significant priority, it makes the most sense to me to trade Buch, but maybe waiting until Smith returns would be the best timing. By then, we may also know if we need a good 6 & 7 starter.

The one-year contracts for free agent starters Bartolo Colon, R.A. Dickey and Andrew Cashner suggest that Clay Buchholz would be hard-pressed to get a one-year, $13.5 million contract on the open market.

[S5Dewey]

Anybody who might acquire Buch would know about the injury risk, a risk of a prolonged struggle or just plain have a full bad season, but they'd be trading for the chance of getting the good Buch. Unlike many other high risk-reward pitchers out there, Buch has actually had several extended stretches of good to HOF level pitching.

 

In today's market, he'd get more than $13.5M/1, but not so much more that we could expect a great return.

 

Buch has a lot of value to this team. If this year goes like past years, we'll be needing more than 6 starters. If we don't, I'm pretty sure he'd help out a lot in the pen, at least until Smith is back to form, but $13.5M is a lot to pay for that role, and if getting under the luxury tax is a significant priority, it makes the most sense to me to trade Buch, but maybe waiting until Smith returns would be the best timing. By then, we may also know if we need a good 6 & 7 starter.

 

I wish you didn't post in bold so I could emphasize the portions I want to reply to!

 

I know what you mean and I hear you. OTOH I keep going back to Ryan Dempster, who made $13M in 2013 - certainly a lot for a #5 - and pitched well enough to keep the Sox in just about every game he started. Buch's ceiling is higher that RD's and his floor is lower, but if he's the difference between a WS appearance and not being there he's not overpaid. I'm in no rush to trade Buch.

[S5Dewey]

The one-year contracts for free agent starters Bartolo Colon, R.A. Dickey and Andrew Cashner suggest that Clay Buchholz would be hard-pressed to get a one-year, $13.5 million contract on the open market.

 

Butttttt.....I'll bet you'd hold your nose and take him for that $13.5M. RIght?

[Kimmi]

This is the first time in a long while where we have a surplus of good-great pitching. I just look back at past seasons where starting pitching was our #1 priority and cringe at trading away our newfound surplus for fear that we will likely end up needing those extra 2 quality starters at some point in the season. It's a tough decision to make for sure and you have to consider we've gone into win now mode. What do we gain from trading a starter now that helps us in 2017? Unless you're gonna flip the prospects at the deadline, not much. It's probably more valuable to us to hold on to everyone right now. Let ST decide who of the remaining 4 lands the last 2 spots and slot the other 2 in the BP.

 

Even though I do think we will trade a starter, I'm still hesitant to say it's a good idea. All of them would do fine in the BP and it affords us a ton of flexibility. Obviously it's an insurance plan against injuries, but we can also have a short leash on our 4/5th starters if an implosion occurs. Additionally, extra starters are invaluable at the deadline once we have a much better picture of our team and its needs for a strong playoff push.

 

I like this post too.

 

One really good thing about Sale, Price, and Porcello is that all 3 of them are likely to pitch deep into games more often than not, and all 3 are likely to give us close around 200 innings. That is huge.

 

Because of that, my concern about our starting pitching depth has lessened. However, I would still hang on to Buchholz and our other starters.

 

I can see roster issues necessitating a trade though.

[a700hitter]

Buch at the back of the rotation doesn't bother me. If he has a hot half season he can help propel us to the head of the Division, but he bothered me in years when he was slotted in the first 3 slots, because he will leave a big hole in the rotation when he gets to 80 or 90 innings.

[moonslav59]

I wish you didn't post in bold so I could emphasize the portions I want to reply to!

 

I know what you mean and I hear you. OTOH I keep going back to Ryan Dempster, who made $13M in 2013 - certainly a lot for a #5 - and pitched well enough to keep the Sox in just about every game he started. Buch's ceiling is higher that RD's and his floor is lower, but if he's the difference between a WS appearance and not being there he's not overpaid. I'm in no rush to trade Buch.

 

My eyesight is bad, so I post in bold.

 

I think Buch is worth the $13.5M, but not much more, so I can see why his trade value is low.

 

My point is that as time wears on, a GM will become desperate enough to overpay.

 

I'm not for handing Buch away, like the Seth Smith suggested offer, as we got Moreland for cheaper than Smith.

[harmony]

Butttttt.....I'll bet you'd hold your nose and take him for that $13.5M. RIght?

I suspect the Mariners and their fans are aiming higher than Clay Buchholz but in the end may be stuck with a Buchholz-caliber starter ... with hopes of a salary less than $13.5 million.

 

Baseball columnist Jon Heyman reported that Seth Smith was nearly traded to the Red Sox before Mitch Moreland signed:

 

 

Smith's $7 million salary would have helped offset Buchholz's $13.5 million salary if Buchholz was the trade target, as some have speculated. Seattle is trying to pare down its pool of platoon players as the Mariners pursue another starting pitcher.

 

The search continues after the Winter Meetings where the Mariners picked up starter Chris Heston, like Buchholz a 6-foot-3, 190-pound righthander who pitched a no-hitter as a rookie. I question whether Buchholz is nearly $13 million better than Heston, who will earn the league minimum in 2017.

Edited December 10, 2016 by harmony

[harmony]

My eyesight is bad, so I post in bold.

 

I think Buch is worth the $13.5M, but not much more, so I can see why his trade value is low.

 

My point is that as time wears on, a GM will become desperate enough to overpay.

 

I'm not for handing Buch away, like the Seth Smith suggested offer, as we got Moreland for cheaper than Smith.

Mitch Moreland added $5.5 million to the Red Sox payroll while a trade of Clay Buchholz for Seth Smith would have cut the Red Sox payroll by $6.5 million (without taking up an added roster slot).

Edited December 10, 2016 by harmony

[moonslav59]

Mitch Moreland added $5.5 million to the Red Sox payroll while a trade of Clay Buchholz for Seth Smith would have cut the Red Sox payroll by $6.5 million (without taking up an added roster slot).

 

I was comparing trading Buc for a prospect and signing Moreland vs trading Buc for Smith.

 

A) I like Moreland better than Smith.

We'd save $1M

C) We'd have a prospect

[harmony]

I was comparing trading Buc for a prospect and signing Moreland vs trading Buc for Smith.

 

A) I like Moreland better than Smith.

We'd save $1M

C) We'd have a prospect

Assuming the trade partner would pick up the entire 2017 salary of $13.5 million.

[S5Dewey]

 

The search continues after the Winter Meetings where the Mariners picked up starter Chris Heston, like Buchholz a 6-foot-3, 190-pound righthander who pitched a no-hitter as a rookie. I question whether Buchholz is nearly $13 million better than Heston, who will earn the league minimum in 2017.

Really? Chris Heston? The one who has but 38 games under his belt in his three year career? The one who pitched for the Giants last year and had an ERA of 10.80? The one the Giants traded for a PTBL just before they DFA'd him? That Chris Heston?

 

If you think guys like that are a better investment than a player like Buch you should fill your roster with them. Good luck with that.

[moonslav59]

Assuming the trade partner would pick up the entire 2017 salary of $13.5 million.

 

They will. I'm not saying we'll get a top prospect.