moonslav59

How is Santana not a full season pitcher? Other than his injured half last year, dude has pitched less than 175 IP two times since he became a full-time starter in 2006. Buchholz has eclipsed 170 IP thrice in his entire career. Are you serious?

The two sample sizes I chose showed Santana with 37 IP per season more than Buch and 47 IP per season in the other. I went on to say that if you are calling Buch a half season pitcher, then adding 37 or 47 IP to that total does not make you a full season pitcher- it would be more like 3/4.

Maybe my math was wrong, and if so, I apologize.

You are trying to create an argument that effectiveness outweighs IP to the point where one can infer that Santana and Buchholz offer similar value regardless of Buchholz' lack of durability. That is silly.

No, I said Santana has been better than Buch.

I said something like Buch's 91 ERA- vs 100 ERA- "nearly" outweighs the IP disparity. I didn't say it makes them even. I also said Santana is better now, and that I'd rather have him than Buch, but that his $26M over the next 2 seasons vs zero for Buch makes it a difficult choice for me.

With all due respect to moonslav, I think that, for the naysayers to be right on this trade, Pomeranz, who for the first half of this season has been better than any off the Sox starters, especially on the road (away from Petco), basically has to collapse, need tommy john surgery or something, or Espinoza has to be at least a TOTL starter in the Pedro Martinez category (although Pedro didn't come through the Sox system, but Buchholz did.). And frankly, I think the odds are against either of those happening.

 

As for those other trades, I never understood why the Sox went after CC for so much money. Beckett for HanRam, on the other hand,paid off in 2007. Getting rid of CC, AGon, and Beckett in 2012 was both brilliant and lucky. I didn't like the acquisition of AGon, but liked him after I saw him play.

I guess I just don't put as much stock in 8 road starts.

I'm not buying this analysis.

 

Price's run support has been 4.96 per game. Yes, that's below the Red Sox team average per game, but it's also equal to the average per game of Baltimore, who are second in runs scored.

And it's more than what he got on previous teams

What good is an ERA- differential if Buchholz can't stay healthy? I'd rather the extra 50 innings a year. Otherwise you have to add Buchholz's ERA- to a AAAA player.

You make a valid point, and I know ERA- is not the be-all-end-all stat either, but I look at it this way, the guy who replaces Buch for those 37-47 IP would have to put up an ERA- of worse than 110 or 120 or worse to even up with Santana's 100 ERA-.

Again, I've said the IP slightly outweighs the ERA disparity, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

Yes, 37 to 47 extra IP are very important, but if you are calling Buch a half season pitcher, then don't call Santana a full season pitcher.

We're comparing the histories of a half season 91 ERA- pitcher to a 3/4 season pitcher at a 100 ERA-.

The disparity is not as great as some seem to be making it out to be.

Look, I'll take Santana over Buch right now for the rest of this year, or if Buch was signed for 2 more years at $26M. It's a no-brainer. Santana is better and projects to be better.

I'm just saying, I'm not sure I'd sign Santana to $26M/2 (what he's due) next winter. I'd probably want to spend more to get someone better or to use towards getting Encarnacion and/or a couple RP'ers.

You're massively understating the importance of IP, and twisting the argument to defend the indefensible.

You're mistakenly underestimating the importance of a much lower ERA-. I said his IP outweighed Buch's better ERA- (slightly), so what's the argument?

What am I misdefending?

Santana is better than Buch. He has been over the years (slightly) and he's way better this year.

Santana may or may not be worth $26M/2 over the next two years.

Tell me how I'm way off base.

I do agree that a 3 year recent sample size can be more telling than a 6 year. One caveat to the "larger the sample the better" rule is the longer you go out the more likely you are including good stats to a guy who is declining, or stats when he started out and struggled while he's in his prime.

 

However, as with everything, context is needed. That one year Santana was hurt weighs down a 3 year sample size more than a 6 year and besides that one half season missed Santana has a remarkedly better track record than Clay.

 

If Santana could be had for Clay, that's as about as easy a yes as you can get. I suspect it would take a bit more but Santana is an easy upgrade over Clay.

Agreed, but it's a half year of Buch vs 2 1/2 years of Santana at the same yearly cost.

If you'd like to sign Santana to a $26M/2 contract this winter, then this is a no-brainer trade with no extra financial compensation required from the Twins.

I don't think I'd spend that kind of money to maybe, just maybe slightly upgrade or 5th starter slot and improve SP'er depth.

I realize this half season of Santana vs Buch is a big value too, but I'm not sure it outweighs the future budget restrictions.

The 47 IP/year difference doesn't tell you anything? That' s more than 7 starts per at 6 IP/start.

That is a big difference, but so is a 91 to 100 ERA- differential.

Again, I'm not saying Buch has been better than Santana over 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 years. He's certainly way worse this year.

I chose the comp, because they both are being paid $13M, and they both are slotted or would be slotted as our 5th or lower SP'er, and I see so much vitriol against Buch, that I don't see a big difference in their two histories. The IP differential is nearly cancelled out by the ERA- disparity.

Yess, I think Santana is an upgrade over Buch, but Buch is our 8th or 9th SP'er right now, so Santana would have to be way better (or better than ERod and others) to be worth taking on $26M/2 after this year.

I agree. They could have dumped all of those salaries eventually anyway.

I seriously doubt anyone wanted CC without us having to pay 1/2 or 3/4 his salary.

Beckett might have been easier, but he had way less years left and at a lower cost than CC.

Let's not forget that Sox management wanted Manny out of time over the years, and made it quite clear to the media. Doesn't that kind of force a player to want out as well?

Look, I'm not defending Manny few despicable actions, but the Sox were actively making it impossible for Manny to stay in Boston. I recall leaks about Manny not knowing which knee it was that was injured, then implying that because nothing showed up on the MRI, it meant he wasn't really hurt, and other leaks. I'm not denying Manny didn't fake an injury, but when you are a manager of a team, and you know you have a child-like employee that is a valuable part of your company's success, you might want to handle his disposal a little smoother.

I was shocked we got Bay after the whole world knew we HAD to dump Manny mid-season.

agree, I'd do this trade all day. I have to believe something else is going the twins way, I would say a lower level prospect outside the top ten but after the past year with DD I don't feel safe making those predictions anymore. Still, I don't think it would take much more if the Twins are looking for salary relief.

So, you'd agree to sign Santana this winter to $26M/2?

I'm not saying it's a horrible signing, but it's not an easy "yes" to me.

It reminds me of the Dempster signing. Some liked it and still defend it. I was against it.

Santana's IP the last 5 years: 228 2/3 178 211 196 108

Buchholz IP the last 5 years: 82 2/3 189.1 108 170 113

 

Santana is on pace for about 180 IP this year.

 

Consistency goes a long long way, There's been less variation in his numbers as well where Clay has had a couple really good runs and then been absolutely awful at times. If healthy, Santana is a much much better option in the back of the rotation for a reasonable cost.

Well, my 3 year sample size was not cherry-picked. It included two of Buch's worst seasons ever. It is more recent than the chosen 5 year sample, so maybe more telling.

How about looking at 4 year, 6 year and 7 year sample sizes? The differences are not as great.

Here's the 7 year (2010-2016):

Santana 193 GS 1243 IP (27 GS/yr & 177 IP/yr) 4.05 xFIP 100 ER- 1.26 WHIP

Buchholz 146 GS 909 IP (21 GS/yr & 130 IP/yr) 4.09 xFIP 91 ERA- 1.28 WHIP

How about 4 years?

Santana 95 ERA- 1.25 WHIP (97 GS/613 IP = 24 GS/153 IP)

Buccholz 99 ERA- 1.28 WHIP (75 GS/463 IP = 19 GS/116 IP)

The differences are not so stark as choosing the 5 year sample size that happens to include 3 of Buch's worst years.

I wasn't cherry-picking the 3 year sample size, as that is what I normally use.

I wasn't trying to claim Buch is better than Santana, but how much better does Santana have to be to be better than our #7 or #10 SP'er? Plus, the main issue to me is the $13M x 2 owed after this season.

So we made a trade a week in advance in order to dump a guy that we had yet to sign. Um, ok... If we had signed AGon after CC, maybe you'd have a point.

I never said we traded for AGon knowing we'd use him to dump other salaries. Clearly that was not my point or implication.

Without AGon, we don't get to dump CC and Beckett. The Dodgers wanted AGon and his bloated salary so much, they took on the massive salaries of those two clowns.

I think it's a valid point regardless of the order of trades and signings.

I get the fact that it is not a simple comparison when you combine future actions made... like saying we still have Carson Smith from that deal (RDLR+Webster> Miley>Smith), but there is some merit to making that point.

Buchholz straight up for Santana? Maybe they don't see any of their starters being ready until late 2018/early 2019? If that's the case, then I guess you do it since the FA market is pretty dismal this year.

Santana-- 16-18:$13.5M annually. 19:$14M club option

2014-2016:

WHIP 1.30 (66th out of 107 MLB startersw ith 350+ IP since 2014)

ERA- 103 (70th out of 107)

Santana 65 GS 402 IP 3.96 xFIP

Buchholz 59 GS 355 IP 4.10 xFIP

Am I missing something?

Right now, I have Buch as our 7th SP'er. Santana is barely an upgrade over Buch, but he's getting $13M for 2 more years!

You're referencing the wrong AGon trade. The trade that dupree and A700 were talking about was the trade to bring him to the Red Sox, not the one to trade him to the Dodgers.

 

To me, they should have kept Rizzo and not signed Crawford. Signing Crawford to play LF is one of the most confusing signings of the past decade. Signing Pablo after already grabbing Hanley is a close second.

No, I was referring to the Kelly/Rizzo trade for AGon that later allowed us to dump CC and Beckett. I doubt we would have been able to dump CC and Josh had we not had AGon.

Remember, Rizzo was still in the minors until the summer of 2012. I doubt the Dodgers would have taken Rizzo and Kelly instead of AGon with the salary dump package.

I clearly worded my post to say that the trade that brought us AGon allowed us to dump CC and Beckett, and that changes how we value the Kelly/Rizzo for AGon trade

BC was a very smart GM and he knew his baseball, but he was too wet behind the ears to get the job done here, the problem wasn't lack of knowledge it was lack of professional experience and maturity. Boston is a hell of a first posting as GM after all. He'll eventually sign on with some small market that will let him build things the way he wants to and make a great career for himself, gain the maturity he needs and who knows, maybe even be back in Boston when he's ready.

I tend to cut Ben more slack than most, and here's why. I think Ben was clearly looking towards the long term- I called it a 5 year plan. He certainly made some horrible signings that were supposed to keep us somewhat competitive until the farm started driving our roster strength. That was his downfall, and I'm not going to try and sugar coat those bad signings. However, I did fully support the stinginess and reluctance to trade youth for immediate gratification.

Trades like the Kimbrel deal or some of the proposed Hamels deals would help us for 3-4 years, but they not only cost top prospects but also critical budget flexibility going forward. I think Ben's plan was to wait until the 2015-2016 winter to load up on pitching as that was a saturated pitching market. That is why he chose the 2014-2015 winter to load up on offense (HanRam & Pablo). The theory doesn't look unsound, but the execution was a failure on part I. Ben never got a chance to execute part II. I tend to think he'd have gone after Price as well, but probably not Kimbrel. I also think Ben would have eventually traded some top prospects, but we'll never know for sure, and we'll never know for whom he'd have traded for.

Ben never got to see his 5 year plan come to fruition. I can understand how 3 last place finishes justifies his firing. My sentiment is this: management must have been on board with Ben's 5 year plan, but they pulled the rug out before the plan was finished. I realize the plan and massive spending until the plan took effect was supposed to keep us competitive until the 5 years were up was an overall failure, despite the one ring in 2013.

In hindsight they aren't exciting, but that's the problem with baseball, no one has a crystal ball and everyone is right/wrong at times in hindsight. They both had red flags but had really good potential too. You make that trade multiple times and sometimes you end up with a really really good pitcher.

 

The fact that they were afterthoughts from being able to dump Crawford and Beckett, and that allowed us to go out and sign Drew, Victorino, and Napoli and win a WS makes it an overall great trade in hindsight.

 

In a parallel universe somewhere, Crawford might of bounced back with Beckett and the Drew/Victorino/Napoli tandem skips their 2013 performance and goes right to 2014 and it's the worse trade in a long time.

Personally, I don't measure trades by just how many, if any rings it brought you. That being said, I think the trade and the following signings did lead to a ring. I was against the Drew, Vic and Dempster signings. I liked the Napoli signings and re-signing. I loved the Uehara trade and extension. I hated the Pablo and HanRam signings from day one.

However, I do not view the poor signings as taking away from the greatness of the trade, just as I don't really judge the greatness of the trade by the 2013 ring. The trade gave us great financial freedom. That alone was a tremendous plus that makes it one of the top 3 Sox trades in my time as a Sox fan (1970>).

How we spent that money is another issue to a great extent.

Yeah, I realize I'm on somewhat shaky ground with that statement. The short-term benefits were definitely there. But did any of those benefits extend beyond 2013?

1) I thought the measurement of any trade to most, was did it lead to a ring?

2) Yes, the benefits went beyond 2013, but just because those (financial) benefits were squandered, does not mean the nothing was gained. Crawford was paid over $85M AFTER 2013.

3) AGon was also owed about $110M after 2013, so had we kept him along with CC, we'd be looking at about $200M in contractual costs with much less production than hoped for. (In hindsight, would you have signed AGon for $110M/5 back before 2014?)

True. And its one of the reasons Theo Epstein has such a good club in Chicago right now. He didn't build that farm system. Someone else did, benefiting from some horrible finishes and good drafting of pick high in the pecking order.

...and Dan D built the farm that allowed Theo to trade for Schill and others.

I just hope DD doesn't continue trading our quality prospects. I'm glad he kept Moncada and Benintendi. I am happy with our roster and projected future roster. Yes, we have some real duds dragging us down somewhat, but despite those issues, we look to have a path to continued success.

who's your alternative at 1B next year guys. Sam Travis is hurt and had mediocre numbers in AAA, he'd have to destroy the ball to break camp with the team first week of April. Shaw is our incumbent at 3B and playing well enough there that there's no point moving him. That leaves Hanley, Pablo and possibly Swihart or Moncada playing 1b for us next year.

 

As much hype as there is surrounding Moncada, I don't think any of the other alternatives are any more likely to be as effective on both sides of the ball as Hanley and certainly not enough so to sacrifice depth for.

I think we will not trade HanRam, but if we do, I'd like to see Moncada at 3B and Encarnacion, Shaw, Pablo and maybe Travis at 1B & DH.

Yes, a trade is highly unlikely due to his large contract. With Encarnacion, where would he fit in the Red Sox lineup? I can't see him staying at first base without more offensive production. Mark him down as another of Cherrington's major mistakes. Does he have 2 years left after this season at $22 million a year? Ouch.

.

Trading HanRam should be easier this winter than last winter. His stock was bottomed out last winter, and he'll have $22M less owed to him.

Your point makes no sense as Gonzelez was brought in before Crawford was signed.

Come on, of course it makes sense. If we didn't have AGon, regardless of when we signed CC, we would not have been able to dump CC and Beckett.