example1

I'd be okay with them dealing Buchholz for Halladay (assuming they can resign him) but adding Kelly seems like overpaying for one year and then $20m/yr. The Red Sox have made big deals in the past around Thanksgiving, specifically Schilling and Beckett. Time to make a third, Theo. Give TOR a 'take it or leave it' deal and a deadline and then move on. The article above assumes the Yankees will get the last chance, but I don't think the Sox should give them that chance. Buchholz is a better piece than anything the Yankees have to offer. He's a top of rotation starter and he's READY NOW.

I generally know what to look for, and I don't think he has OCD. I am a mental health professional who works with lots of people with OCD, other anxiety disorders, PTSD, ADHD, depression, etc., If it was OCD then he would either throw over every time there was someone on first or be distraught to not throw over in those situations, or need to use some sort of internal coping mechanism to keep from doing so. At the most I imagine it is some sort of anxiety-related issue, i.e., he feels the pressure mounting more with someone on first. I just don't see OCD. At the same time, I'm not downplaying your assessment, merely disagreeing. You certainly have a window into that worldview that I do not, so I can't trump you there. I think the more plausable explanation--since I haven't heard anything about him having OCD-type-symptoms in other areas of his life--is that he has bad peripheral vision and supreme confidence in his pickoff move. He DOES have a great pickoff move, very quick. He probably thinks he can go to it time and time again to get guys off first. I think you're right that guys on first make him anxious and he wants to do something about it, and that the Sox catchers and coaches worry about it.

Thumb out = throw to first, but that's not the only time a pitcher throws to first. I'm very confident about that. One seemingly obvious example was Buchholz throwing to first numerous times while guys were still standing on the base. The catcher most certainly did not tell him to do that.

They very well might. I just think Clay needs to not spend time looking into the dugout or worrying about runners on base. Buchholz actually has a stellar move. I know it is one of his obvious weak points right now, but he has really good feet and is very quick. His pickoff is actually good for a right hander. He just does it too often and when it isn't necessary; I'm confident that game management is one of the things that all great pitchers eventually learn.

If Clay had OCD I imagine we would see it in other areas... other particularities that he has. I haven't noticed anything. Have you? It's only officially a clinical "disorder" if it gets in the way of his life. I haven't heard of other things that he's particular about (say, washing his hand 30 times before leaving the clubhouse and missing the warmups)... I digress... Perhaps some anxious tendencies, if anything. My theory has always been that Clay has bad peripheral vision and simply can't see the man leading off of 1B the way other pitchers do. That's clearly the case. He wouldn't throw to 1B if the guy isn't leading off, unless he can't tell. An easy-ish way around that would be to have the catcher call picks at 1B. At least that way he won't throw over when the guy is standing on the base or when the 1B isn't paying attention.

I have advocated for trying to make this move without Buchholz. I think that the team would be better off upgrading Dice-K's spot or Wakefield's spot. I think the Red Sox would prefer to keep Buchholz over Wake or Matsuzaka. I'm doubtful that is possible. I think getting Felix is about upgrading the rotation, not any particular player. Felix would be an upgrade for everyone. He would be better than Lester or Beckett and would be a safety net against Beckett leaving the following season, so in that sense he would ultimately be an upgrade on Beckett. The way I see it, we're not talking about an outright attempt to upgrade Buchholz. It is an attempt to upgrade the rotation and Buchholz (in this scenario) would be a necessary casualty.

Yeah, I really like the idea of Cabrera. I'm not as worried about his character issues, he's got a lot of career ahead of him. With his cost I would hope that it wouldn't cost as much as getting, say, Gonzalez or Hernandez. Of course, it would cost that much though.

I agree. Sorry man.

Their values are definitely different. If the categories that I was talking about were "Lester level value" vs. "all other values" then your criticism would be appropriate. I'm not saying they have the same value. I'm saying they can be categorized the same way; namely, they can both be categorized as players who the FO is not looking to upgrade on. When we talk about value I simply cannot think about it without refering to money. I know that the FO sees things that way, as does every other FO in baseball. The marginal value of the player has to be taken into account. With more time on his initial contract, no escilating longterm deal, and his stuff, Buchholz gains value. I would argue that his youth/inexperience is exactly one of the things that makes him valuable. We probably differ on that. I think we agree on this. Of course, the return is really what makes it a good deal or not. The same would be true if they were thinking of trading Lester for Pujols. When you take into account Buchholz's likely value over the next 5 years and his cost, he may have a particularly high upside to a team like Seattle who is confronted with Felix being willing to resign there, or rebuilding a franchise through a trade of Gonzalez like in San Diego. Most teams hold onto guys like that for a long time. If another team is willing to deal a possible HOF pitcher in his early 20's, an MVP caliber 1B, or another player like that, yes, you seek to upgrade using that player. That's not a shot to Buchholz. There are players I would trade Lester for too. Hell, I would definitely consider trading Pedroia for Utley if the situation presented itself, but I won't be mad if the Sox don't spend their time pursuing it. We don't see this happening with position players because there are generally other positions to upgrade. When there are 5 SPs on a team you may end up trading your young, super-high-potential #3 starter for an established #1 who will want $20m/yr much sooner but who is a better pitcher now and probably will be in the future. I have advocated pretty consistently that I would prefer that they keep Buchholz. I think he will be a definite part of this rotation moving forward. However, if they have the chance to get Felix and have Felix and Lester through their 20's I think that is too much to pass up.

Please excuse the triple post. Yankees228 has always been respectful to me, so he deserves a response...

BTW, this might take the cake for stupidest on-going discussion yet. EDIT: I took out a provokative paragraph that I should just delete. It was only provoking others, not thought.

Here's where I can't keep up: If there are 1. players who represent upgrades to Lester/Pedroia and 2. all players start out as prospects then how is it possible that 3. no prospects can be compared to Lester/Pedroia (when we're talking about future plans for the Red Sox)? That doesn't 'make sense. The FO exists in a longitudinal world, where the decisions they make now directly impact their future. Let me ask, if you hypothetically KNEW that Buchholz would be better than Lester, would you say his name could be uttered with Lester's as players that the FO isn't looking to upgrade? Or are you just so compartmentalized and rigid that you can't imagine such things? Your best defense is to pretend that I totally misunderstand you, and then to make that appear to be my fault. I made a BINARY distinction: players who could easily be upgraded vs. players who could not. That's the only way that I lumped Lester and Buchholz together. Other people got that... Dipre and BSN07 were both able to articulate my view, despite me never writing directly to them or talking to them privately about my views. They got it. You didn't. I blame your rigidity and compartmentalized thinking. You agreed that Buchholz couldn't be easily upgraded, and thus agreed with me. Yet you continue to argue that the two can't be considered in the same status because Lester is accomplished and Buchholz is less-so. I never tried to make that separation, that's something you're brain added. You don't agree that they are equally talented baseball players... which is fine, since nobody is arguing that. Merely that they are both good enough to be not worth striving to upgrade. Buchholz potentially being involved in a deal for a franchise cornerstone is not the same as saying that Theo is actively seeking to upgrade him. You know that. (cue: I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. etc.,)

I believe that Lowrie and Melky are both relatively expendable to their teams. They would both be pretty easy to upgrade. The Yankees don't need to upgrade Melky as much as the Sox need to upgrade Lowrie, but that's based on the team's composition rather than their actual value.

I think about it as a spectrum or scale. Again, Buchholz is further on the "difficult to get better value" side of things than 99% of prospects or players his age. This is true. It is also why he probably won't be moved. In terms of dealing him right now would be a really bad time. His potential is likely to be realized (even if only as a sold mid-rotation starter) within the next season, yet teams will try to pretend that he's only a prospect. Really? Has Lester ever won a Cy Young or finished in the top 3 of Cy Young voting? No. They're all better pitchers than Lester currently. However, Lester is younger than 2 of them and has a very (watch out, hard word for you to handle) projectable frame and repetoire. I would rather have Lester moving forward than 2 of them, and it is pretty close with Felix. What you're saying is innane. It doesn't matter. Nobody deals in status. The fact is that Buchholz would be hard to upgrade. So would Pedroia and Lester. The goal of this team should be to get as many players who are tough to upgrade as possible. When the team is filled with those players then Theo can kick up his feet and relax. Nobody who knows anything about Buchholz thinks that Theo should be excitedly calling around to see who he can deal him for, whether that return player has lots of "status" or not. I don't disagree. That doesn't mean that there are miles of difference between a pitcher like Buchholz and a pitcher like Lester or a starter like Pedroia. I agree that Lester and Pedroia would get a bigger return, but that's not the point and it certainly wasn't the point of my initial post that got you in such a tizzie. My original point was that all of them would be tough upgrades and that's a good thing... especiallly when you're talking about a 25 year old player. Buchholz is the team's most valuable trade chip, but not for long. After a few months he will most likely be untouchable... he already largely is. Whether you like it or not, he will be an integral part of this rotation.

I don't disagree with this. The ONLY reason Lester has more value is because he has proven himself. It's not because his pitches are better, or because he has a better frame or anything else. It is only because of the league in which he has done his pitching. The Red Sox believe with a high level of confidence that Buchholz will be a Lester-like contributer at the MLB level. He's a different pitcher than Lester, but his stuff is more impressive.

Right, which is why you should not be consulted in discussions involving prospect moves. Stephen Strasburg hasn't proven anything yet either. Should the Nationals be out there overpaying for 5 SPs for the next 10 years? Or would it be safe for them to believe that Strasburg will eventually be in their rotation? You value not having to rely on faith that players will be good. That's not the way that any FO other than the Yankees operates, and even they have more faith in their young players than you do. You and a700 have an entirely unrealistic expectation about how teams should be managed. The true stupidity here is that by your reasoning you would value an aging Juan Gonzalez over a rookie Albert Pujols or Mickey Mantle because Juan Gone has proven he could do it in the big leagues. It's exactly the same thing. Right, and the Red Sox were right not to do it. YOU certainly weren't saying that Lester was going to be really good. If anything this proves that the Red Sox know better what they should do with their youngest players. They were right with Lester and Papelbon, Pedroia, Ellsbury, etc., Now they are holding onto Buchholz (except perhaps in a deal for Halladay or Felix or Gonzalez) and they are saying that Kelly and Westmoreland are off limits. Those of us who support that perspective are apparently idiots because these guys aren't proven yet. You want it both ways but you end up just looking wishy-washy and argumentative. Which young pitchers are you talking about? Jesus, really? The equivalent of spring training? Not this guy... Most of the baseball world was touting Buchholz and Hughes. Clearly most of them still think highly of both. The Sox passed on Joba out of concerns for his longterm durability. I'd love you to show me where anyone compared Ellsbury to Rickey Henderson (other than basestealing). Hansen actually WAS a closer in waiting (nobody said he was the actual closer). Bard has a plus, plus arm and went form being ineffective in the minors to being very, very good with some adjustments. Nobody is saying he's Mariano so stop being dumb. Nobody says the Sox have the best prospect in the AL East. They just reasonably believe that they will have a big core of prospects by 2012 and there's reason to believe this is the case. And nobody is saying that the Sox will be carried exclusively by their prospects. That would be a stupid thing to say.

And Pedroia could be upgraded for Utley, Lester for Lincecum, etc., The point is that nobody is spending any time actively looking to upgrade those positions. AS I SAID, if a deal came along that allowed them to be upgraded, they might listen (it isn't that they are un-upgradeable) it's just that they are above average and of the caliber for a WS team to have playing every day. Buchholz is an option for a trade because he is COVETED, not because he sucks. Yes, if Buchholz could be dealt for former Cy Young winner (and perennial Cy Young candidate) Halliday or possibly the best young pitcher in baseball (Felix) then the Sox might bite. Otherwise, they're not going to spend any time looking to upgrade that position. Buchholz is good enough to be one of the 5 pitchers on the Red Sox. The only people debating that are the "I haven't seen it yet" crowd like you and Gom. Honestly, it's foolish.

You also don't know what you're talking about. Lectures from a700 and Gom--two self-professed non-prospect followers--about valuation of prospects... what a day. Does it take a subscription to get your ideas, or do they come for free? I will agree about Lowrie not having produced much. I included him as a homegrown talent the Sox would probably try to improve upon if offered something better through FA... just like Melky. THAT'S the group I'm lumping them together in.

That list is from March 23, 2009 and doesn't include or accurately evaluate players who were drafted in 2008 (because they hadn't played when the list came out), so that's Kelly and Westmoreland. It doesn't include international FAs like Iglesias, and it doesn't include the 2009 draft class. It also doesn't take MLB rosters into account, so the players who will be in their primes in 2012 aren't included (Lester, Ellsbury, Pedroia, Buchholz, Bard). Tell that to the Pittsburgh Pirates who wasted the 4th overall pick in the draft because they didn't want to pay a few million on top tier talent. You make bold claims but admit you don't know what you're talking about. I'm willing to take your word that you don't know what you're talking about, but not that all teams are getting smarter. So how come the Red Sox seem to outspend just about every other team in the draft? Even if they copy the Sox, it doesn't negate the fact that the Red Sox have had two stellar drafts in 08 and 09 and stand poised to do it again in 2010. Not sure what you're trying to show here... Looks like the Red Sox have 100m or so to spend and are in better financial shape than the Jays and close to the O's. I wouldn't assume that the Os and Jays are about to take over. And you're like a teacher who hasn't sat through a day of class in his life. Or a football coach who has never played the game. You admit you don't know anything about what you're talking about, then gloat as if you know what you're saying. You were stupid to think it would continue indefinitely. The Red Sox and Yankees are different. The Red Sox value keeping their farm system success nearly as much as they value the success of the MLB club. The Yankees did not. Big difference. The only ignorant hole I see is the steaming crater left by your most recent post... Thanks genius. We all know that. The Red Sox live and die by this understanding... You will still tout the stupidity of not resigning Damon, yet they got Daniel Bard because of it. They let Cabrera, Lowe and Martinez walk after 2004 and got Ellsbury, Hansen (flipped for part of Jason Bay), Buchholz, Lowrie, Bowden and Egan (bust) because of it. But you admit you don't know what you're talking about, so what you think doesn't have any basis in reality. You will assume that be are being sold a bill of goods. I will assume that Baseball Prospectus and Baseball America know more than you do. They weren't wrong about Pedroia, Ellsbury, Bard, Buchholz, Lester, Papelbon, etc., BTW Gom, the Braves had one of the best farm system for years and years. Other teams may have been "copycats", but they weren't able to replicate it. I am under no false belief that the Sox have the best system in baseball--they don't. They do, however, have one of the best systems in baseball combined with a lot of resources to supplement that system and to restock it every season. That's a different combination than other teams have and one which has been the vision of Theo's tenure in Boston... the $100m player development machine.

First of all, I don't think the Red Sox have had a majority of quality homegrown talent in the AL East in the last 10 years. They've had some, not a majority. Second, the point isn't just to have a player that you've developed be somewhere on your roster. The point is to develop players who are good enough to supplant established, MLB FAs and veterans who would cost a lot more. Pedroia, Youkilis, Lester, Buchholz, Bard, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Delcarman, and Lowrie have all done that already. By carefully planning and projecting the roster into the future the FO can develop guys for particular spots and not have to wade into the FA pool, saving their limited cash for positions where internal development is impossible. It takes careful planning and discipline to not accidentally fall into the "easy" answer of just getting the easiest FA when there's an opening on the roster. So far I haven't seen the Yankees take many risks with their roster and so I haven't seen it pay off. When they suit up Montero with an MLB average replacement behind him, or if they plan to go with Austin Jackson without him needing to supplant a former all-star who is making more than $10m a year you can let me know. The closest they've come is in the bullpen and end of the rotation with Joba/Hughes, but both of those are pretty low risk when they've got CC, Burnett, and Pettitte making close to $40m between them--they're being paid a lot to deliver a lot. So it isn't an issue of having some token homegrown players on the roster. It's an issue of using homegrown talent to maxamize the team's resources to stay competitive. That means homegrown SPs and important position players. One should expect teams with fewer resources to have homegrown players all over the place. The difference the Sox have is that their homegrown players end up being better than what's available for way more money--otherwise they wouldn't get a chance to play. If the Sox keep spending their money wisely, and developing players into key positions, they should be able to actually compete with teams whose fanbases don't give a s*** about developing players and who would prefer to spend $200m/yr on a team loaded with FAs and expensive re-signs. The Red Sox will be fine, I'm not worried about the Jays or Orioles taking over their role in the division, because that role is about wins, not homegrown talent.