example1

Buchholz didn't start really pitching until College. His FB is still developing. I think he's a very reasonable candidate to be a late bloomer. Oh. My. God. Slapping self with palm of hand. Dude. You said he was injured. I said nothing of the sort. When you said "injured" I looked it up and found 15 days on the DL for fingernail problems. You made it up, and then acknowledged that you just thought he was injured. Don't twist this into me starting stuff that isn't true. This is where I quoted you saying he was "bad and injury plagued" http://www.talksox.com/forum/talk-sox-forum/13354-official-2009-2010-hot-stove-season-thread-50.html#post502503 There were 5 starters they were more comfortable giving the ball to while Clay worked some things out. Clay got a good portion of time at AAA where he absolutely dominated, and thus eliminated any fear that his 2008 was some indication that he's not meant to be a very good MLB pitcher. Fangraphs also says that Clay worked on his release point, throwing from a lower slot which improved both his GB% and his slider. He's lowered his K%, but replaced it with groundballs. Not a bad thing, in terms of getting deeper into games. He's working on throwing pitches that make outs. The better question might be why let him work that out on the MLB level, lengthening his MLB time and basically wasting his cost-control? It's frustrating for Buchholz, but for the club it is much better to have him still controlled. First of all, we have established I don't "fall in love with every prospect a team touts." I like players that everyone touts. Big difference. Secondly, how can you critique players you have never heard of, let alone seen or read about? You make a blanket claim that all touted prospects won't be stars (which we all know) and then say that you have never heard of the particular ones that people are actually touting. It's like saying that a band you've never heard of sucks, or that a movie you've never seen or heard of is probaby going to be bad. It's closed minded, by definition. I didn't ever say I wouldn't move Buchholz for Halladay. I've said that if they can sign Halladay to an extension then Clay can move. I would prefer if they kept Buchholz and moved Kellly, because Buchholz can contribute right now and is a better projectable pitcher. Losing both seems like too much to give up for a one year player who eventually makes 1/6th of the team's salary and probably signs Josh Beckett's ticket out of town. Phil and Joba have been filling the MLB roster spots out of necessity. Buchholz has been working his stuff out in AAA and not accruing MLB time. Depth allowed the Sox to do this. The Yankees need Joba and Hughes to contribute last year and every year from here on out. The Red Sox have 3 SPs who are supposed to be near-#1 pitchers (Lester, Beckett and Matsuzaka). Dice struggled last year but his resume is that of a #2 at least. Again, we will see what happens. Cheers.

That's the stupidest link I've seen in awhile. I think it is entirely reasonable that Theo and JH disagree on what to do. Theo really values prospects and from what I've read he wasn't very interested in dealing Hanley for Beckett--certainly not at the time, and most likely in retrospect. Theo's job is to produce a winning team with Henry's money. If Henry says that he doesn't care about the cost/value of his wins then that might change how Theo approaches things. I just doubt that Henry has ever said that. If Henry is saying "spare no expense Theo, the money doesn't matter" then we should expect to see a boatload of FAs come to the Sox this year. I won't hold my breath. I find it interesting that all of the rumors are coming out of NY. There is very little coming out of the Herald or Globe about what's happening behind the scenes. That's the way Theo likes it. I have a very hard time believing that a NY outfit would have access to the FO when the Boston guys don't. I smell ********.

How many times did I use the word "thru"? I said THRU age 24. Go back and check the posts. You are so dense that you claim victory for a game nobody was playing. Thru age 24. Those are the numbers I looked at. Not the random age 24 season (which may be one players 1st season and another player's 5th depending on their team). Buchholz's numbers thru age 24 were better. That was my argument. I was right. Yet you said he was injured, so you were talking out of your ass. Again. You say it is conjecture that Buchholz would have pitched more on a lesser team? Really? I think it is a very safe assumption. I assume you think that Joba would have had the Joba rules on KC and that Hughes would have been used as a setup man for BAL? Wow. Here's a fangraphs take on him from July (before his relatively good appearance in 2009): "In any other organization in baseball, Buchholz would be a regular member of the rotation. He’s mastered the minor leagues and even pitched fairly well in the majors, posting a career 4.34 FIP over 98 innings in 2007 and 2008. He’s got top notch stuff and improving command, which is why every GM in the world asks for him when they call Boston, but the Red Sox realize how valuable of an asset he is, which is why he’s still in their organization. Wherever he ends up, he’ll instantly become the future of the team’s rotation." http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2009-mlb-trade-value-40-36 They know more than you. They've heard of Casey Kelly, for instance. They wanted him to improve his FB command and develop his slider further. That's the reason. They also pitch Smoltz just enough to know that he was s***ing the bed. Buchholz pitched half a season. They didn't hide him. Yes. Let's let this stand for now. You predict average. I predict quite a bit better than average. We'll see who is right. The point is that nearly all pitchers need some time to adjust to MLB pitching. You could look at pitchers who had thrown the same cumulative # of IP, or you could look at pitchers through the same age. What doesn't make sense is to stupidly pick the "age 24 season" and compare it to that, like you did. I've eaten a lot of crow about Buchholz, you're right. I sure feel ashamed that I prop him up as a good pitcher. Again, we will see. For this very reason you advocate that Theo do what he generally hasn't done? Okay, that makes a lot of sense. The reason they can't replace pitchers like Buchholz is that there aren't a lot. Not many pitchers who throw 94 with a plus-plus changeup and an excellent breaking pitch. Right, why would you want to know the subject you bloviate about so often? I think I've shown that other pitchers have had similar numbers through age 24 and have turned it around to have great careers. The point is that once you trade him then the book IS closed on Buchholz--for the Red Sox. That's why the decision isn't an arbitrary one, it is one that demands a lot of thought and accurate evaluation of his talent. Again, we can be through with this discussion. I think you've talked out of your ass (Buchholz doesn't throw hard)(Buchholz was injured) enough to show that you don't actually know what (or who) you're talking about. We will let it play out. I think Buchholz will justify being in the Sox rotation next year and that throughout his career few will be disappointed that they chose to keep him and do something else with the $4m-per-WAR that they would have to pay in FA. You disagree. The line is drawn on this player and we will see how it plays out.

What do you mean they pitched better? I think the stats speak for themselves. Please explain how Halladays numbers were better? They pitched more? That's a function of the team they pitch on, not the quality of the player. Notice anything similar between Felix and Greinke? (hint: look at the rotations they started on at their young age). I can assure you that Buchholz would have hundreds of more innings if he played for a worse team. Finally, I think it is VERY debatable whether Buchholz is a prospect. I don't think he is. He pitched 92 IP last year as a starter. He's got a set rotation spot for 2010. He's not eligible for ROY. He's not on prospect lists, he's on the 40 man roster. He's a young pitcher with 1 year of experience, who is still cost controlled but who has pitched regularly in MLB. Not simple if Buchholz isn't considered a prospect. I would say that pitchers who threw MORE and who put up worse numbers are even BETTER comparisons, because they had more innings to get their s*** straight and still hadn't at this point in their career. They defeat your argument even more, which is why I suspect you don't want to use them. You were the one who said he had problems with injuries. You were wrong. I showed that. You call it irrelevant, and I suppose I do too. What isn't irrelevant is that you have spoken out of your ass on a few occasions in this thread alone, so credibility is dropping like a stone in my eyes. At least I'm honest enough to admit it. I've been right a lot more than I've been wrong. Not lately. The Sox top prospects have been coming into the league pretty consistently since Theo took over... or perhaps you haven't noticed. And yet you claim that people are looking through rosy colored glasses to be sold on the bill of goods. Again, I don't see Theo saying that Dustin Richardson is likely to become the next Joe Nathan, or that Josh Reddick projects to be Carlos Beltran. Casey Kelly--unlike most minor league pitchers--projects to grow into a big, athletic righty with plus-command and multiple plus-pitches. Buchholz has 3 widely-acknowledged plus-plus pitches. It makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge that the FO does, in fact, tout players at different levels. Some players are presented as future stars, many others are presented as probable everyday MLB players, not stars. If you don't know about the prospects I am touting, how can you claim that I'm wrong? Whatever Gom. You can think I'm being sold a bill of goods to believe that the Sox top prospects--like Kelly, Westmoreland, and previously Buchholz--are as good as the scouts say they are. Everyone else is wrong, you're right. Their job is to win. If their prospects give them the ability to do that then they aren't going to trade them for players who offer an equal but more expensive, or worse chance. With all the hyping they did about that useless Jon Lester and Dustin Pedroia and Jacoby Ellsbury we'd expect them to have been traded by now... unless you are wrong that their job is to hype and then trade them. Just as with Buchholz, there was a consensus view that Longoria would be an everyday, solid-MLB'er. Whether he would be a star or not was another issue and debatable. Nobody contests that Buchholz should at least be an MLB pitcher. Many people believe he will be a #1 or #2. What you seem to misunderstand is that players who are cost-controlled are GOLD to every team other than the Yankees. Even if they only become regular MLB players. Players who become more than MLB regulars (i.e., stars) can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars over their salary over the course of their 6 years.

If he's available then it should be done. He is exactly the type of offensive piece you cant really get through FA and would be an anchor for the club throughout his contract... even if he eventually moved to CF. If Iglesias really has an elite glove then he may ultimately supplant Hanley, but with Ellsbury in LF, Hanley in CF and Iglesias at SS they would have an elite defense.

A700 can clarify, but I think he's talking about Tejada moving to 3B, which seems more likely. If Tejada is willing to take a contract that is reasonable based on the player he is now then he's worth looking at, with the undertanding that he's a 3B in waiting. The problem is that I don't believe he has played much 3B at all and whether he has the required skills to play the position. I don't love the idea.

Tejada on a one-year deal would be fine, but I think he could reasonably ask for a lot of money. I also imagine he would be hesitent to take such a short contract. I would be if I were him. They might consider Tejada for 2-3 years. Honestly man, I'm really pretty "blah" about the SS position. What they need is 2-3 years until some of their young SS can develop or while they seek an impact player. Nick Green, Alex Gonzalez, etc. types might be what they get if they don't sign a guy like Scutaro. It seems to be a pretty weak position MLB-wide right now, certainly through FA, and the SS who are really good are understandibly locked-in wth their teams. They seek a franchse SS; we'll know him when we see him. I imagne they want to be as flexible as possible untl that happens. Personally, I hope that Jed Lowrie steps up and takes the position. They don't have to have a star there, but they need have either a developing, cost-controlled player who plays above average ball, or an established impact player. The SS postion has been a dead position since (before) Renteria left and I don't see any obvious answers that would make Red Sox fans happy.

I'm not sure $6m/yr would be a bust, per-se. The obvious question is who else would you want? Miguel Tejada is a realistic option, except he's not very good at SS anymore and defense is something they should be aiming to upgrade.

I realize there's a lot to not be excited about with Scutaro. I hope he's not Theo's plan. That said, he's been worth 7.2 WAR over the last two seasons (2.7 and 4.5). His statistics don't look spectacular, but with decent defense and an MLB approach at the plate he was worth $32.3m over those two years ($12m and $20.2m). If Scutaro is interested in playing for Boston (i.e., would take a reasonable contract to get his prefered team) then the Sox might be able to get him at a decent rate. I actually don't think he would be a bad guy to have hitting 9th if they could sign him for something like 3 yrs/$17m AND if they were going to sign another FA and they wouldn't lose key picks for him. He could be worth the entire 3 years of his salary if he earns 4-5 WAR over the life of the contract. He would give them a reliable veteran and someone they wouldn't mind sitting if Lowrie or Iglesias are able to take his spot. Again, I'm much more in favor of other options, but this one would not keep me up at night.

How is Schilling the only relevant comparison. If you can point out what it is about Schilling that makes his thru-24 stats so much more relevant than Halladay and Carpenter then perhaps I can find others that are more suited to your liking. If you're admitting that you're too lazy to do the research then I will assume that you don't have good reasons to prefer Schilling over the other guys I listed, other than the fact that it makes your argument look worse and this is the lazy-man's way of avoiding that circumstance. Otherwise, explain yourself please. 1) If by 3 years you mean one year of eligibility, then you're right. However, the Red Sox have been smart enough not to waste his MLB time when he's struggling. Instead (I believe) he has roughly 5 years of cost-control left. 2) Buchholz also hasn't been injured. He had one 15-day DL stint due to a fingernail issue. That's it. He threw 134 total IP in 2008, and 191 in 2009. Casey Kelly was the Sox first round pick in 2008. He is a SS/P (soon to be just pitcher) whose father is Pat Kelly (former major leaguer). He was prepared to be the QB at Tennessee until the Sox paid him a $3m bonus. He's been extrordinarily successful so far as a pitcher. He pitched in the 09 Futures Game and is very advanced for his age. Just FYI. You laid down a challenge about 24 year olds and future success. I answered that challenge. Now I challenge you. Please find quotes of mine where I tout prospects who have not been successful. I imagine Craig Hansen will be one... others? Maybe Jed Lowrie... As of right now I can find something like 240 players (I lost count around there) listed as active prospects on the Red Sox farm teams. I think I tout about 1 or 2 at a time, maybe up to 5. That's a percentage of 2%. I hihgly tout about 2% of Red Sox prospects. My eyes are f***ing glazed over in rose colored lenses, huh? Huh? Would you say the same about any other player? Let's pretend we're talking about Evan Longoria in 2006. If the consensus were correct that Evan Longoria were a franchise 3B, your thought is that he would be traded? How about Jon Lester, if the consensus in 2005 was that he was going to be an exceptional pitcher, then we should expect him to have been traded? That makes no sense. Please clarify. Yet you have no definitive proof that I've been wrong about any of these prospects. Hell, the jury is still out on most of them because most of them are still in their early 20's. Yet you haven't read anything about the Red Sox top prospect (Kelly), while telling those who have that he's likely to be a bust and that we're being sold a bill of goods? What kind of critical analysis went into this, other than an ingrained bias?

You consistently degrade the work I put into my posts, even though I try to actually QUANTIFY s*** when so few people do. It isn't some foreign approach and if you want to deconstruct my ideas, do so in the language I'm speaking. Not saying "Koufax was from another generation so his numbers don't matter." They DO matter, when the argument is that no players have had career starts like Buchholz, it matters that players have--and not just one or two, and not just 5 years ago or 20 years ago, or 40 years ago. Consistently. Would you trade for a player who had Koufax's numbers through 29? I bet you would. Yes, he's from a different time but that should only impact the stats as a whole. It doesn't change the fact that Koufax put more people on base and had worse control than Buchholz through the same age. They are both 24 year olds, they are both pitchers throwing the same ball 60'6. I realize there are differences, but there are a lot more similarities than differences and those similarities matter. I appologize for saying you don't add anything to this forum. I'm truly frustrated at the lack of research that you or Gom do for your posts sometimes. This isn't school, but there are things you can use to back it up... especially when you're both clearly here so often. Then when Gom tries--by using s***** stats and comps--and asks someone to refute him, and I do, you jump down my throat without trying to understand the context of my reply, and without giving any respect for the work I consistently try to put in looking stuff up, putting it in tables, etc., Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving.

So Halladay and Carpenter don't count? How many need to be found before you drop this line of argument. One is enough to prove you wrong, how many do you need before you will just admit your initial reasoning--with all it's holier than though undertones--was faulty? 1. You have to pay for a track record. You have to pay a lot for a track record. You dont have to pay much for 5 years of Clay Buchholz. 2. There are "blue chip" prospects and then there are former #1 overall prospects. Totally different. By the "blue chip" vs. "not-blue chip" argument you and a700 (and apparently SFOC) have no way of distinguishing between really good blue chip prospects and guys who stand a chance to flame out. In this instance, I would say that Clay Buchholz stands a much better chance of being a MLB star than Casey Kelly because he's come father. Your argument seems equally applicable for both. Why does someone else saying what you are trying to say give your argument any more validity? You were trying to stiffle optimism. I feel that I'm being reasonably optimistic given Clay's stuff, his success in the minors and majors, and the consensus that he's a front of the rotation starter. You don't believe the consensus among scouts and execs, the same people who are trying to trade for him. That's fine, but I'm not going to be the one accused of having overly rosey glasses. I don't even think you could quantify what my expectations are for Buchholz, even after all this time. Perhaps knowing that information would help you make a better argument. What the hell does this mean? Why do you think you've used your baseball watching years better than me? In fact, are you older than me at all? What are you talking about? Also, for the one who questioned a700's fandom....you're an ass. You're not even worth me scrolling back to find out who you are. First of all, everyone is entitled to root for his team as he sees fit. Right, because just like most of the other blue chip prospects, Buchholz is completely irrelevant now and teams have written him off. He's certainly not going to be starting for the Red Sox rotation next year and his career--just like all other 24 year olds who didn't appear to be setting the league on fire--will be a failure.

They prove that Gom's premise--pitchers don't get through age 24 with mediocre numbers and then go onto success--is wrong. I showed that great pitchers of many eras have done exactly that. THAT's the point.

This whole board was challenged by Gom to find ONE example of a pitcher Buchholz's age who had worse numbers than him at this point in his career who went on to do something good. I picked a few names out of my head--knowing baseball as I do--and, yes, they fit that request. I typed them up and presented them as data... ...and from you I get this pile of s***. Gom based his whole argument on us rosey-eyed Red Sox fans, too stupid to realize that NOBODY BUCHHOLZ'S AGE and with his career so far, has gone on to do anything great. His window has closed, his value is gone, his ship has sailed. That was the crux of his argument. It was wrong. Now you're jumping in and putting down the work I did to show that, factually, he is wrong, by saying "what do these numbers prove. He's not Bob Gibson, har har". Well, factually I would argue he's just wrong. There ARE pitchers who have had success after slow starts. Some of them were Buchholz's age and had thrown 500 IP and had worse numbers; some were Buchholz's age and had thrown 15 IP and had worse numbers. It goes both ways.

Only bad or pitching-desperate teams have their 20 or 21 year old kids starting consistently. You know that. His playing time is a factor of playing for a good franchise that can't tolerate guys struggling on the fly. What data do you use to support this claim? Out of pitchers who threw 80 or more innings last year he ranked 20th in fastball velocity at 93.5. Zack Greinke throws 93.7 and ranked 17th. Anyone who consistently throws in the mid-90s is throwing hard. If they have effective secondary pitches nobody will criticize their fastball. Nobody criticizes his fastball. Players who ranked below Buchholz? Among others, Oswalt, Carpenter, Garza, Price, Cueto, Halladay, Cain, Joba, Lincecum, Harden, Hanson, Gallardo, Billingsly, Floyd, Liriano, Peavy, Lackey, etc., These are the very best pitchers in the world and Buchholz currently ranks near the top at 24. Last three years: 2007: 91.1 2008: 92.6 2009: 93.5 Given that playing time (i.e., IP) is not reflective of actual talent in a young team, we should look at pitchers by age. Are there other pitchers who went on to be good but who had yet to fully display that through age 24? Roy Halladay vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24: [Table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB | Halladay | 336.1 | 4.95 | 1.537 | 6.3 | 1.59 | Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.495 | 7.6 | 1.86 | [/table] Buchholz had a better ERA, a better WHIP, better K/9, and a better K/BB than Roy Halladay through the same age. Chris Carpenter vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24: [table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB | Carpenter | 406.1 | 4.52 | 1.496 | 6.6 | 2.03 | Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.495 | 7.6 | 1.86 | [/table] Similar WHIP, better K's. Sandy Koufax vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24: [table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB | Koufax | 691.2 | 4.10 | 1.428 | 8.9 | 1.69 | Bucholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.495 | 7.6 | 1.86 | [/table] Similar WHIP, better K/BB, much heavier hitters era (ERA+ = 100 for Koufax, 95 for Buchholz) Curt Schilling vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24 [table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB | ERA + | Schilling | 145.0 | 4.16 | 1.517 | 7.0 | 1.59 | 88 | Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.497 | 7.6 | 1.86 | 95 | [/table] Buchholz is better in every category except ERA. Bob Gibson vs. Clay Buchholz, thru age 24: [table] NAME | IP | ERA | WHIP | K/9 | K/BB | ERA + | Gibson | 162.1 | 4.55 | 1.608 | 6.5 | 1.34 | 91 | Buchholz | 190.2 | 4.91 | 1.497 | 7.6 | 1.86 | 95 | [/table] Again, better down the line... I just listed you 5 pitchers. 2 of them are in the HOF, 2 of them could one-day get there, all 5 are bona-fide aces. There are more, many, many more. There are plenty of pitchers who are dominant at 24, but there are also plenty who have only begun to pitch in the bigs by that age and some who have been pitching for awhile and are worse. You might be right about this. But Hughes IS a special arm. You and I might disagree about that. Buchholz and Hughes both have an assortment of pitches. Only if one team completely overspends to get Halladay. That's the only way the Jays can gut these farm systems. The Jays had their chance last year and didn't take it. Now their options are more limited and their asking price has to be lower. I don't think you defend your points very well. He's got elite stuff at 24 in a frame that is still developing.

Alright... Who is better on Toronto then? Really? You think that I'm lumping Stolmy and Bowden and Johnson and Weiland and Buchholz all together and saying they're all going to be good? I think my discernment among those players is much more nuanced than your consensus "he's just a prospect, sell him before his stock falls" approach. The only way that I see them as similar is that I think both will be contributors on a very good MLB team. I think they also through roughly as hard as one another, they are roughly the same age, and they are both very cheap given their talent. His value is higher than most prospects because most prospects don't have plus-plus changeups and breaking balls, a very desirable (and still developing frame) and a mid-90's FB. THAT'S why his value is higher than most prospects. Also, I actually don't think you're advocating for selling Buchholz for one year of Halladay. I'd venture to guess that we would both be okay with them trading for Halladay if it was basically just Buchholz for him, and if they could sign Halladay to an extension. That seems reasonable, because TOR would actually get a good return--which seems necessary.

Hansen and Tazawa both played in their first year. I was looking more for age, should have been clearer about that. Nice catch.

Your evaluation about Lester was basically that because nobody can tell what he's going to become he should be moved before his stock drops. I looked up the quotes the other day, that's what you were saying. I could change the name "Lester" to "Buchholz" and it would be the same thing. I just get the sense that you see all prospects as the same. It's like saying that all college football players are equally unlikely to have success at the NFL level. Sometimes the skills that players have just makes them obvious candidates to be great at the NFL level. Buchholz has dominated all levels of play and has had a number of very good starts on the MLB level. Still, I think Halladay is good enough to send some highupside players for.