User Name

Do you even logic? What I'm saying is that Price will see a correction and his performance will adjust to his peripherals health permitting. Clay is what he is right now.

Sale/Strasburg/Fernandez/Harvey among others actually.

By all accounts, if what you say is true and I am incorrect (a possibility), do you think Panda is a Red Sock? Because he goes against everything in Cherington's team-building approach.

I read an analysis on fangraphs that presented Smith as a "slightly above-average" TJ risk.

This is sig-worthy.

Slightly below his contract price? Please wake up from your dream and come join the rest of us in reality.

You're all over the place. The fact is you tried to make a point in defending Buch's futility by using Price's ERA as a comparison. It's incorrect, because of the underlying numbers for the results. End of story. It's not an issue of how much money they make. There are guys making league minimum (Pomeranz) who are outperforming overpriced veterans. That's not the point. The point is that Buchholz has been terrible, and Price's early struggles with bad luck are no justification, full stop.

The fact that Buchholz flat-out suck. It's not 1968, we understand the underlying numbers and peripherals behind a pitcher's performance. You just can't compare Price to Buchholz in 2016 or any other year for that matter to make absolutely any point.

Trying to justify Buchholz' suckitude by comparing him to Price is laughable. Price's peripherals (11.39 K/9, 5.0 K/BB, 2.28 BB/9, .352 BABIP, 2.68 FIP) suggest an ace-caliber pitcher who has endured some bad luck. CB's peripherals (6.10 K/9, 1.46 K/BB, 4.18 BB/9, 260 (!) BABIP, 5.48 FIP) suggest a s***** pitcher who is pitching s*****. I mean, I agree that his option should have been picked up, but let's not try to justify the unjustifiable.

I

Durability is half the problem. Run prevention is also a problem depending on the year, and we're back to square one: Buchholz has not provided a single season that combines above average IP and run prevention numbers since 2010.

Donkeyland, but what I meant was specifically Boston media. I follow the twitter guys and yadayada, but I no longer get MLB network, and I did not buy the MLB channels this year because it's a waste of money honestly.

7-run rule.

Which is why I specifically made it clear that we are comparing the 2013 version of Bogaerts (as in, the one the scouting community presented), because what he has done in the Majors is pretty much the opposite of what was expected of him.

The fact that they didn't have Shields last year does not detract from your point, it reinforces it.

I think the main difference in our valuation is the overvaluing (in my opinion) of power. Bogaerts had good plate discipline, but not as good as Benintendi, and they're both take-and-rake guys either way. The main difference in offensive packaging is that Bogaerts was supposed to be a high-power/average guy, with some K issues to his game because of his swing. That's how he was scouted, and that's the Bogaerts we are comparing to Benintendi, who has a similar approach, but more contact ability, speed, and less propensity to strike out. I just think overall versatility in offensive game trumps power every time, because power can develop, but approach is extremely difficult to coach, and you can't teach speed and hand-eye coordinaiton.

He's club president. He manages the coffers to a large extent, and he's technically above DD. And you'll never hear DD whine about the cost of upgrades. That man will trade his mother in the right deal.

They fitted him with a brace he's comfortable with. Supposedly he wasn't very confident putting pressure on his bad knee.

If you do understand, then how can you brush aside the value of positional impact in prospect valuations? A 55/55/55/55/55 overall 55 catcher is way more valuable than a CF with the same scouting. That's the crux of the argument here. In general, Benintendi and Bogaerts have similar scouting reports, with Bogaerts having more power, and Benintendi presenting better plate discipline, speed and defense (comparing him to prospect Xander, since the improvement defensively in current Xander is astounding). The real deciding factor between the two is that Bogaerts plays the second weakest offensive position in the diamond. That added value is not peanuts.

I read a Sam Kennedy quote yesterday stating literally the opposite of what you're saying.

All I'm asking is where you heard/read that he had slow bat speed. I'm not disagreeing, because it makes total sense, I just hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere. I obviously don't get the same access to media that you guys do, since I don't live in the US at all.

They're not current grades, they are projections, and there are actually more than three plastered over the internet. If Benintendi was a 70 right now, he'd be playing in the Majors! Hell, Bogaerts was projected as a 65-70 guy, but he was an overall 55 in 2013 if I recall correctly. Also, for someone who toots his own horn so much about prospect knowledge, you don't seem to understand three fundamental things about prospect evaluation: 1) Not all draft classes are created equal (the point about Buxton being a #1 prospect is bogus if there's no one with similar profile but different positional value to compare him to). 2) Positional value is an enormous part of a prospect's stock. It's not rocket science. If you compare a SS and a catcher with identical overall grades, the catcher will be considered the better prospect. No need to reinvent the wheel here. 3) Current valuations are projections are not the same thing, and that is the reason why a "prospect" is a "prospect" and not an established major leaguer. While initially the point was to ignite discussion, I am certainly not interested in a penis measuring contest with someone so set in his ways, so agree to disagree.

Two words: Shelby Miller

Shields was in San Diego during the Royals' run to the championship last year. He was their ace during the 2014 season when they made to the WS and lost to the Giants.

.....which doesn't preclude a pitcher from sucking overall.