Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: June 24, 2007 at 04:13 PM (#2415074)
What are the differences in defense? Looking at BABIP, Buerhle's is low (.237) while Red Sox starters are about league average.
One reason I am against it is I want to see a rotation of Matsuzaka, Beckett, Lester, Bowden, and Buchholz.
   2. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 24, 2007 at 04:22 PM (#2415086)
How worried are the Sox about Schilling? Because it's hard for me to see how much value Buehrle adds unless Schilling's shoulder runs a high risk of being shot.

We're 10.5 games up. The lead isn't insurmountable, but it's big enough that the value of improving the team for the regular season (ie, upgrading from Tavarez) isn't high enough to spend a Bowden or better prospect. The rotation is strong enough that adding max 2-3 Buerhle starts in place of Schilling and Wake doesn't add that much for the playoffs either - unless Schilling might be done.

I don't really know what I'd want the Sox to go after. They have too many average-y ballplayers, such that expensive upgrades don't add very much. If Mark Buerhle could be had for a Lowrie-centered package, I think you probably have to go for it and forget it, Buerhle's that good and Lowrie's just not that great, but I highly doubt that Lowrie+ could ever be the best offer. (Am I too low on Lowrie?)

What the Sox need, it seems to me, are a bullpen arm, a backup catcher, and a shortstop. I think the Red Sox assume that Julio Lugo is the shortstop they need, and it's just a waiting game until he shows up. I don't know it's feasible to replace the knuckleball catcher midseason (though I'd like to try it), and I assume that the Sox hope that Buchholz can be that bullpen arm.

What the Sox should be doing, then, is keeping an eye out for a catcher, while remaining in the mix for any legit stars. Remaining in the mix for Buerhle makes sense. But that they're the frontrunner is unlikely to me, unless Schilling's shoulder is much worse than has been reported.
   3. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 24, 2007 at 04:31 PM (#2415097)
According to Rosenthal during the Yankee game yesterday, Kenny Williams has said he will refuse to give a negotiating window to whichever team acquires Buerhle. My guess is that he thinks the White Sox have a chance to reacquire their ace, otherwise it's sort of a weird thing - I don't think Buerhle has the right to refuse a trade, so that wouldn't be it. But Robothal said it, and he's pretty reliable.
   4. Raskolnikov Posted: June 24, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2415101)
Please let the Red Sox get Buerhle. That way we don't have to get 2 more months of ridiculous Buerhle to the Mets trade proposals.
   5. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 04:51 PM (#2415128)
Rask,

You don't want Buehrle on the Mets? He looks to me like a ticket to the postseason for them.

Matt,

I think you're a little bit low on Lowrie. Besides a 4-month period during which he was injured he's excelled in the minors. I believe his current line (.305/.420/.484, 44 BB, 37 K) translates to something like .280/.370/.420) in the bigs. For a 23-year-old SS, that's a fine prospect. Not untouchable but not one to deal in 2-month rental situation.

I'm guessing that Williams is not allowing the negotiating window because he knows that Buehrle wants to stay in Chicago or go to St. Louis. Rather than have a deal fall through when no extension can be worked out, Williams would rather get what he can and let the other team hope they can change Buehrle's mind.

I really am conflicted on what Boston should be willing to give up in such a deal, probably because I am biased and attached to Boston's prospects. Bowden's a nice prospect and had a great run in High-A, but his stuff's not considered elite. Should I be willing to part with him? Am I being way too optimistic that Williams' head might be turned by what Moss is doing this year?

On the Sox needs, I think a starter is a more urgent need than MC thinks. There are question marks about everybody except Dice-K, and if a couple spots falter, you're possibly looking at a .500 team the rest of the way, which puts them at 92 wins or so.
   6. Mister High Standards Posted: June 24, 2007 at 04:58 PM (#2415138)
I'm rather concerned about Lester adding value this year to the major league club this year. His strikeout rate has fallen off the page in June, and to a lesser extant in May. In May he struck out about 7 per 9, and in June it has fallen to about 4. Overall he has struck out only about 6 hitters per 9 in AAA which is just not enough for a pitcher with his profile, at that level. Long term I'm still a buyer of Jon Lester, but at this point I'm skeptical he will be able to be a quality major league pitcher in the short term.

In my opinion, with Lester out of the equation, the RedSox starting pitching depth is drastically overrated. Especially with fairly large question marks surrounding the Sox opening day 5. Schilling is currently on the DL, and recently has reported no forward progress. Beckett has been on the DL once this year, and has a history with injuries. Daisuke Matsuzaka is the hardest worked pitcher in the American league so far, while he has successfully transitioned to pitching every 5th day from every 6th day, the shorted recovery time may result in additional fatigue. Tim Wakefield, my favorite Red Sox ever, is 40 years old coming off a year where he broke down in the second half, and has been consistently inconsistent this season. And Julian Tavarez is Julian Tavarez, though he has pitched well this year, lets keep one thing in mind. 1) He is a ####### pycho and 2) he is Julian Tavarez.

While they have other options in the bullpen and in AAA in Kyle Snyder and Kason Gabbard neither are guys I want to see taking a turn every 5th day, especially if they are replacing one of Beckett, Dice-K or Schilling.

The wild card is Clay Buchholz. If he can contribute, and the stats tell me he can, then I wouldn’t go after Buehrle unless, the cost was extremely reasonable. However, the stats can’t tell you if a player can handle the major leagues with only 3 years experience on the mound. Of if he is able to withstand the mental strain of pitching in Boston. Or if he can continue to stay healthy of pushed well beyond his historic work loads.

The Sox should be in the market for a top-middle of the rotation starter in my opinion, if the goal is to win the World Series. Which lets be honest, is what it needs to be.
   7. Raskolnikov Posted: June 24, 2007 at 04:59 PM (#2415139)
Sure, if the White Sox don't insist on Milledge or Pelfrey, I'd take Buehrle. I don't see much of a chance of that happening. This is Zito Sweepstakes II, and I have a similar valuation: non core prospects for a good, not great, starter who will walk at the end of the year.
   8. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:07 PM (#2415154)
There are question marks about everybody except Dice-K, and if a couple spots falter, you're possibly looking at a .500 team the rest of the way, which puts them at 92 wins or so.
Maybe - I think I'm more optimistic on Beckett than you are, and I expect Matsuzaka to improve, not merely hold on at this level - but it's June 20-whatevereth. If things go bad in the next month, they can make a big trade for a starter. I don't think that spending top prospects in a prophylactic trade makes sense. That is, the need for a starter could be urgent, and it's early enough that the Red Sox should wait until it looks like it really is urgent, or likely to be urgent, before spending heavily on a starter. (Unless they're really scared about Schilling and they want to make a move before everyone knows that Schilling is busted.)

On Lowrie, there seem to be significant question marks with regard to whether he's a 23-year-old SS or a 23-year-old 2B, and just how good he'd be at either of those positions. If he's a solid SS, then I like him a lot more, and it's harder to decide whether you trade him for Buehrle.

On Moss, etc, my usual rule of thumb with internet-proposed trades is that if I don't have to hesitate before determining I like a trade, it's very unlikely to happen. So I assume that Moss or lower prospects are not enough to get Buehrle. If it happens, obviously, I'll be very happy, but I don't think it's worth much discussion - ######' A trades are ######' A trades, everyone wants to make them, and it's not all that interesting to discuss them before they've even been rumored.
   9. Mister High Standards Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:10 PM (#2415160)
The only names I wouldn't consider in a deal for Buehrle are: Clay, Jacoby and Lester. Bowden and Lowrie would both be on the table. Don't forget Buehrle is likly to be a type A, so you'll get a little kicker in addition to the rental.
   10. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:12 PM (#2415166)
The guys on SOSH have said that Lester has not been allowed to throw his cutter in recent starts. That would certainly change my opinion of his stats, if true.

Rasky, what about Martinez or Gomez? Those guys seem like the kind that Kenny Williams would like (am I right in remembering that he leans in the toolsy direction). Would you deal one of them for Buerhle? (BTW, why is Martinez at AA, where he seems to be over his head?)
   11. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:13 PM (#2415170)
Don't forget Buehrle is likly to be a type A, so you'll get a little kicker in addition to the rental.


Yeah, but the Red Sox always get boned on these. They'd probably end up with a 4th round pick because the other team would have signed 3 other superstars as well.
   12. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:14 PM (#2415172)
The only names I wouldn't consider in a deal for Buehrle are: Clay, Jacoby and Lester. Bowden and Lowrie would both be on the table. Don't forget Buehrle is likly to be a type A, so you'll get a little kicker in addition to the rental.
The Sox system is so clearly stratified that this is actually a pretty good way to express our different feelings about the pitching.

I think Bowden should only be on the table if Schilling is in real trouble, or if more goes wrong with the rotation in July. Lowrie's on the table now. Where does everyone else stand?

(FWIW, Gammons reports that all three of Lester, Buchholz and Bowden have been pronounced unavailable by the brain trust. It's an article about pitching, so it doesn't speak at all to the question of Ellsbury's status.)
   13. Raskolnikov Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:17 PM (#2415180)
Rasky, what about Martinez or Gomez? Those guys seem like the kind that Kenny Williams would like (am I right in remembering that he leans in the toolsy direction). Would you deal one of them for Buerhle? (BTW, why is Martinez at AA, where he seems to be over his head?)

Haha, you're kidding right? You're just doing this to bait me... why don't you instead ask Williams to castrate me in exchange for Buehrle?
   14. Mister High Standards Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:18 PM (#2415181)
While not a Mets fan i wouldn't consider trading Fernando Martinez for any rental, or really any non in primer star. Period. There is a real - non-zero chance that Fernando Martinez is the best propsect in minor league baseball right now. I wouldn't say a 720 OPS from a CF'er, as the youngest player in the league is overmatched. Andrew McCutchen, thats overmatched in AA.
   15. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2415191)
On Moss, etc, my usual rule of thumb with internet-proposed trades is that if I don't have to hesitate before determining I like a trade, it's very unlikely to happen. So I assume that Moss or lower prospects are not enough to get Buehrle. If it happens, obviously, I'll be very happy, but I don't think it's worth much discussion - ######' A trades are ######' A trades, everyone wants to make them, and it's not all that interesting to discuss them before they've even been rumored.


Agreed. But turn back the clock to 2006, and compare this to the Red Sox dealing David Wells, who they know they are not going to resign. Buehrle's a better pitcher and younger, so it's not a perfect comparison. How does Moss + compare to Kottaras? Probably not all that well, I suppose.

What do you think other teams are offering for Buehrle? The Yanks presumably aren't parting with Hughes/Tabata/Chamberlain, and the Mets aren't giving up any of their top guys, I would guess. Is anyone offering a B+ or better prospect for him, knowing he's a FA?
   16. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:24 PM (#2415198)
Haha, you're kidding right? You're just doing this to bait me... why don't you instead ask Williams to castrate me in exchange for Buehrle?


That's what I thought, just checking to make sure. But with Milledge's off-field issues and the glut of excellent OF prospects (+ Beltran), isn't Milledge somewhat expendable? He hasn't even hit that great in the past couple years.
   17. philly Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:26 PM (#2415203)
Buchholz should be the only prospect definitely off the table for me.

I'd put the next tier of Ellsbury, Lester, Bowden on the table for the right trade. The right trade would be one that fills an important need with a player that can be counted on (as much as any player can be in the short term) for a couple win upgrade.

Is that Buehrle? To me no because the lead is very big and I'm pretty confident in Beckett and Matsuzka at the front of the rotation. Wake will be solid enough and I think Schilling and the back of the rotation types will have something in the tank down the stretch. And I'd be willing to promote Buchholz too. That's ok, but if the Sox think Schilling is probably cooked and will absolutely not promote Buchholz for his own longterm good, then they probably ought to be in the market for a starter.

But even in that position I'd be willing to move the next tier of prospects - Moss, Lowrie, Hansen - for a starter a notch below Buehlre if it would take one of Bowden/Lester/Ellsbury to get Buehrle.

On a semi-related topic. I noticed this year that there were 17 type A FAs signed which is historically a high total. Out of those 17 type As only six were signed by a team that had to cough up a 1st rd pick. I don't know how that compares historically, but that's a pretty big blow to a team that trades for a rental player. A 2 in 3 chance at only getting a supp pick and a 2nd or 3rd or 4th pick as compensation is something to keep in mind.
   18. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:27 PM (#2415204)
MHS,

I agree that Martinez is doing great in AA considering his age. But is there some advantage to him being a lousy player in AA rather than one of the best at A+? It's not like he dominated A+ last year.
   19. Mister High Standards Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2415228)
But is there some advantage to him being a lousy player in AA rather than one of the best at A+? It's not like he dominated A+ last year.


There is no way we can answer this question with any level of comfort. Some players react better to challanges, and we have no way of knowing. The Mets have a pretty good track record for developing young players over the last few years, you have to trust that they know more than we do.
   20. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:43 PM (#2415241)
There is no way we can answer this question with any level of comfort.


Agreed, and agreed the Mets have done a good job with prospects. I just wondered if anyone knew the reasoning behind this move.
   21. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:47 PM (#2415254)
SOSH has a good thread on this.


According to one poster there:

Cowley (the Sun-Trib writer) was just on ESPN Radio. He expanded on his comments--the only teams with the pieces to get this done that have made a serious offer are the Red Sox, Mets, and Braves, with the Sox offer being the best. He said the Yankees do not have the resources to make this deal. The White Sox, in the last month, have decided their farm system is not as good as they thought--they just fired their Director of Scouting. They want minor league arms and position players. He also said Buehrle would not want Zito money (said maybe 5/$75). He said this story comes from multiple sources and not just a single leak from Kenny Williams. Said he does not think this is a done deal by any means, but that Boston has stepped up in the last few days.


A lot of info there. This makes me think someone like Ellsbury's in the deal, because of the whole "Yankees don't have what it takes" bit. And the 5/75 estimation, if accurate, makes Buehrle a steal.
   22. Raskolnikov Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:52 PM (#2415264)
Agreed, and agreed the Mets have done a good job with prospects. I just wondered if anyone knew the reasoning behind this move.

We've had long discussions on this in various threads. Can rehash on another day, but chatter is going on right now.
   23. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:52 PM (#2415266)
Boston stepping up "in the last few days" suggests that they're seriously concerned about Schilling, I think.
   24. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 05:59 PM (#2415281)
Yeah, that makes sense MC. It also speaks to their confidence that Buc or Lester can contribute this year.
   25. John DiFool2 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:02 PM (#2415296)
The Red Sox trading for Buehrle is insane. This is a guy whose strikeout rates even when he was going good, was in the mid 5's/9, and it was less than 4.5/9 Now granted his K rate is up this year, but if the Sox trade for him just because he has given up 81 hits in 93 innings they are nuts. The Sox have some guys in the minors who can probably fill any needs that they might have; Gabbard probably isn't much worse than this guy.
   26. Mister High Standards Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2415319)
Gabbard probably isn't much worse than this guy.


AAAA pitcher = 1500 innings 122 ERA+ ? Someone is insane, and I don't think it's the Sox braintrust for exploring this.
   27. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:06 PM (#2415322)
But he's succeeded with this low K rate for years. He defies DIPS but not ridiculously so. And he's so damn durable that even if he were only league average, he'd be a legit #2.
   28. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:07 PM (#2415324)
John -

Buehrle has a really, really long record of success. Why cite K-rates absent any other numbers? Your implication seems to be that he's "lucky" or something, but he's been at it for years. ERA+ 140, 129, 108, 126, 143, 93, 134 - this is a well above average pitcher who is as durable as any in the big leagues.
   29. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:07 PM (#2415327)
And Gabbard probably IS much worse than him.
   30. John DiFool2 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2415434)
The K rate worries me because that predicts future career length (and to a slightly weaker sense success) much better than anything. No injury has been mentioned WRT his '06 season, so why the sudden dip? If he has genuinely gotten his out pitch to work well this year then yeah he doesn't look too bad, but to give up Lowrie, Ellsbury, Bowden or Buchholz for this guy is nuts, as we might very easily need any of those guys next year (ok Bowden is 2+ years away). Just another example of a tendency to overrate a major leaguer, just because he has a "track record" in the majors, and undervalue a minor leaguer because he doesn't. Save the money and spend it more wisely somewhere else ~=~ putting a likely league average guy in the rotation instead.
   31. CraigK Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:43 PM (#2415464)
At the rate it's going, it's looking like the only way the Cardinals get him is with some combination of Rasmus, Garcia, Jay, and Anderson.

No thanks; I'll take our chances in winter, TYVM.
   32. Kyle S Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:46 PM (#2415477)
matt r, i think andy mccutchen will be okay. he started the season in an awful slump and has been hitting his way out of it slowly, but he is still very young. clearly he was overrated last season when compared with fernando, but i'd still put him in the top tier of outfielder prospects. my ranking would be something like

upton
bruce
fernando
maybin
ellsbury
mccutchen
tabata

so he's at the bottom of the tier IMHO, but those are all very, very strong prospects. weren't all the americans (upton bruce maybin ellsbury mccutchen) all from the same draft class? impressive.
   33. tfbg9 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:47 PM (#2415482)
This is an excellent thread.

Its good for a team to have a lefty starter, I think. Buehrle works really really fast, and has a pretty low BB rate, and as baseball fans, Red Sox fans, we should remember how underrated starters who work really fast and seldom walk people are, not necessarily as pitchers, but as performers for us on TV--as entertainment. I for one, just love a starter who gets the ball, then throws it right away, and usually throws strikes. But that's just me. Buehrle is pretty much the anti-Clement in this regard. He's an absolute HORSE. Lets get him in a trade and extend, if at all possible, as long as we keep Bucholz, Ellsbury and Lester.
   34. The George Sherrill Selection Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:53 PM (#2415508)
Odd, Buchholz is up now in the Rockies-Jays game.

And don't look now, but McGowan has pitched a no-no through seven innings.
   35. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:49 PM (#2415662)
John,

I think you're seriously underestimating how rare and valuable Buehrle's durability is. Check out Philly's study, which really drives that point home.

Secondly, I think you are overestimating what an average pitcher is. This THT article by Jeff Sackmann breaks down what the averages are by rotation slot:

Lg      #1      #2      #3      #4      #5
MLB     3.60    4.14    4.58    5.10    6.24
AL      3.70    4.24    4.58    5.09    6.22
NL      3.51    4.04    4.57    5.11    6.26 


Here's another Sackmann article that delves into how many innings you're likely to get from each slot:

Spot       ERA     GS      IP
#1 Starter 3.91    28.5    181.2
#2 Starter 4.61    26.6    165.7
#3 Starter 4.74    27.6    167.5
#4 Starter 4.82    20.8    123.4
#5 Starter 4.96    20.6    126.8
#6 Starter 4.77    15.5    95.1 


Buehrle's got a career 3.80 ERA pitching in a good hitter's park, and averages well over 200 IP per season. He's a #1 starter. I understand your concern over strikeouts, but I think that his consistent results overwhelm those concerns.
   36. RobertMachemer Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:51 PM (#2415665)
What are Comiskey's park effects? And how would they affect various DIPS components? (Or noncomponents in the case of hits)? What's Chicago's defense been like over the last 5 years?

Alternately, compare/contrast Buehrle and Zito.
   37. CraigK Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:57 PM (#2415672)
Whatever.

Cardinals ain't getting him, but enjoy decimating your farm system for Buehrle, guys.
   38. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2415673)
Cardinals could well get him after the season's over. Hasn't he always said that that's where he wanted to go?
   39. tfbg9 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2415676)
What are Comiskey's park effects? And how would they affect various DIPS components? (Or noncomponents in the case of hits)? What's Chicago's defense been like over the last 5 years?

Alternately, compare/contrast Buehrle and Zito.


What is this, an essay question for a undegrad? :-)
   40. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2415677)
PF for the new Commiskey seems to be consistently ~103 for pitchers. Hm. I seem to remember it being high offense.
   41. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:01 PM (#2415683)
Cardinals ain't getting him, but enjoy decimating your farm system for Buehrle, guys.
I think Buehrle is probably worth ~1/10 of the Red Sox farm system. No Buchholz, only one of the other top 5 prospects, that seems close enough.
   42. John DiFool2 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:02 PM (#2415685)
[Posted this over at SOSH, bears a quick summary here]

That is what he has done in his past, Darren. I appreciate a solid rotation anchor but B. doesn't have the stuff to be a #1: #2 maybe (plus such semantic games bore me), but it's looking forward which I'm interested in, not looking backward.

Looking at his present comps through last year (age 27) you get a very mixed bag. You have 4 guys (Glavine, Kaat, Denny Martinez, Reuss) who did manage to stay effective into their mid/late 30's (and onward), compensating for declining (but usually not below average) K rates in other ways. That's the upside. The downside are 5 guys who were basically done as solid ML starters by age 30 (Petry, Alex Fernandez, Bill Monbouquette, Ross Scuzz Grimsey, and Storm Freakin' Davis), and another guy (Mark Mulder) undergoing a perfectly miserable season this year after seeing his K rates decline. I don't make that gamble for any of our top minor guys; Moss or Murphy maybe, Pauley or Hansen, but that's it. The only good news is that Buehrle's K rates are back up this year, and he is young enough that he might reinvent himself like Denny Martinez did. I still don't like him on this team and would rather wait for the likes of Santana in a year or two.
   43. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:03 PM (#2415689)
Alternately, compare/contrast Buehrle and Zito.


Buehrle's had better BB rates, Zito's had better K rates. HR rates are close, especially considering parks. Both have been amazingly durable, with a slight IP edge to Zito. Buehrle's a year younger.
   44. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:04 PM (#2415690)
I for one, just love a starter who gets the ball, then throws it right away, and usually throws strikes.
Completely agree. Buehrle's utterly maddening when he pitches against Boston, due to him being wicked good and all, but when I've watched him against other teams, he's great to watch. Just aesthetically, I'd love to get him.
   45. John DiFool2 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:05 PM (#2415693)
Frankly I want to see what these guys can do, in a Red Sox uniform, and not for someone else; guess that's where I'm really coming from. You are simply running too much of a risk of a Sandberg/DeJesus or Brock/Broglio (and Broglio certainly looked pretty good before that trade didn't he?) if one of our A guys have to go.
   46. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:06 PM (#2415697)
John - you seem to be making a case against offering a 5/75 contract to Buehrle. Those numbers (comp lists, K rates separate from overall effectiveness) are relevant to his longterm forecast. They're really just not relevant to his projection for August 2007. The trade for Buehrle would be primarily for the present, and the Sox would get a somewhat great chance at signing him up for hte future, but not necessarily that much. The longterm value of Buehrle is a little bonus to me, not the central issue at hand.
   47. John DiFool2 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:18 PM (#2415712)
For a rent a player I really don't have much a problem with Buehrle, as long as he walks at the end of the season. It's just that I've seen more a than few posts (here and SOSH) suggest we trade Buchholz AND Ellsbury and/or Lowrie and then sign MB to a 5 year deal, and I simply don't like that one freakin' bit.
   48. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:20 PM (#2415715)
Frankly I want to see what these guys can do, in a Red Sox uniform, and not for someone else; guess that's where I'm really coming from.


Well, I sure do agree with you on that. And I agree that his K rate makes him a less attractive pitcher than Peavy or Oswalt. I think we just disagree about how much that low K rate matters.

I would also argue against using similarity scores to try to predict what a pitcher will do in the future. First, they weren't designed to predict the future. Second, take any good pitcher and his comps will predict a short/mediocre future for him. Take Oswalt. He's got Mussina, Welch, and Candelaria, but there's also Jay Hughes, McDowell, and Nolan. Those comps lists are a warning against signing ANY pitcher longterm, not Buehrle specifically.
   49. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:23 PM (#2415717)
It's just that I've seen more a than few posts (here and SOSH) suggest we trade Buchholz AND Ellsbury and/or Lowrie and then sign MB to a 5 year deal, and I simply don't like that one freakin' bit.


Who are these people and where do they live? No Buchholz at all. That's a non-starter.
   50. John DiFool2 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:40 PM (#2415762)
SOSH as I said, not so much here. Along with my position in post #45 I'm probably being somewhat of a Devil's Advocate, as I'm seeing a little bit too much unqualified enthusiasm for the guy and a seeming willingness to sell the farm (heh) to get him.
   51. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:55 PM (#2415813)
You bring the pitchforks and I'll bring the torches. Let's find these crazy people!
   52. JB H Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:43 PM (#2415926)
Trading anything of value for Buerhle is nuts. There's virtually no benefit to having him added for the regular season because this team isn't missing the playoffs. On average for the playoffs, he'd be maybe a run and a half better than his replacements. The Sox can squeeze more value out of Jed Lowrie's career than that.
   53. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 10:11 PM (#2415993)
Trading anything of value for Buerhle is nuts. There's virtually no benefit to having him added for the regular season because this team isn't missing the playoffs. On average for the playoffs, he'd be maybe a run and a half better than his replacements. The Sox can squeeze more value out of Jed Lowrie's career than that.


In the offseason, he's going to cost the team's #1 pick.
   54. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: June 24, 2007 at 11:28 PM (#2416127)
Doesn't Buehrle work really fast? If yes, bring him here!!
   55. tfbg9 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 11:34 PM (#2416132)
Post 54, meet post 33.
   56. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: June 24, 2007 at 11:44 PM (#2416139)
You think Lester has a chance to be as good as Buehrle? I don't.
   57. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 11:50 PM (#2416142)
I'm glad I don't have to make a decision whether to deal Lowrie in a deal for Buehrle. I don't think I have it in me.
   58. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 11:51 PM (#2416143)
Why is everyone on SOSH talking about 2 top prospects going in this deal? That would be a nightmare!
   59. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 24, 2007 at 11:55 PM (#2416144)
Why is everyone on SOSH talking about 2 top prospects going in this deal? That would be a nightmare!
I'm concerned that's actually the cost - not one of Bowden/Ellsbury/Lowrie, but two. I couldn't find any specific reports that said it was two of the top 5 prospects, so I dunno. But I worry that the cost of very good players is usually, well, high.
   60. Darren Posted: June 24, 2007 at 11:56 PM (#2416146)
Anybody think Wily Mo might be in a Buehrle deal?
   61. The District Attorney Posted: June 24, 2007 at 11:56 PM (#2416147)
Doesn't Buehrle fit into the Pettitte/Glavine K-rate "exception"?
   62. tfbg9 Posted: June 25, 2007 at 12:11 AM (#2416150)
60-maybe.

61-So far, yes.
   63. NTNgod Posted: June 25, 2007 at 12:16 AM (#2416154)
Anybody think Wily Mo might be in a Buehrle deal?

He's a FA after next year; it's possible the White Sox may want someone they can control longer than that.
   64. Darren Posted: June 25, 2007 at 12:31 AM (#2416159)
Of course they'd want that. But they're giving up someone who's only under control through this year. And Wily Mo could be locked up cheaply for a couple years right now, I'd suspect.
   65. NTNgod Posted: June 25, 2007 at 12:41 AM (#2416163)
It depends on what the other offers are. They may opt for players with no or little service time. Also, Buehrle is a lock to bring back picks - Pena's year and a half before FA may not be enough to garner picks.

Without knowing what else is on the table, it's impossible to say.
   66. Darren Posted: June 25, 2007 at 12:47 AM (#2416167)
A lock to bring back picks but what type? If some lousy team signs him, you don't get their first rounder. If a good team signs him but signs another top tier FA, maybe you get their second rounder.

The thing that boggles my mind is the notion that the "Yankees don't have the resources to make this deal." The Yankees have just as good top prospects as the Red Sox, though perhaps not as many. What they don't have is a Major League ready position player. So maybe Wily Mo... Just a shot in the dark.

Okay, final offer, I'm willing to part with Wily Mo and Lugo, but you're bleeding me dry here. Okay, Timlin too, but that's it.
   67. Chris Dial Posted: June 25, 2007 at 12:59 AM (#2416180)
I'd dump MIlledge for Buerhle and try to get away before it was reneged.

Buerhle would be a pretty easy "re-sign" for the Mets (assuming they won something), and he's going to win another 150 games over the next 10 years.

He's the real deal.
   68. Darren Posted: June 25, 2007 at 01:02 AM (#2416182)
Dial,

Your Met-fan brethren don't agree with you on Milledge. I'd consider that as the Mets, as they need a SP pretty badly and Milledge is a bit redundant (and head-casey) for them.
   69. Chris Dial Posted: June 25, 2007 at 01:05 AM (#2416184)
My Met-fan brethren are usually over-excited about prospects, while I rarely am (DWright is an exception).

Milledge is pretty much what you say. Buerhle is a real talent (oh, the Mets are a near-lock to make the playoffs without him to)
   70. Mister High Standards Posted: June 25, 2007 at 01:10 AM (#2416186)
John take the arguement over to SOSH. If I wanted to argue with them I would spend my time their. Address OUR points.
   71. Mister High Standards Posted: June 25, 2007 at 01:14 AM (#2416191)
Mets are a near-lock to make the playoffs


I don't believe those words mean what you think they mean. The RedSox are a near lock, and have an 11 game lead with 4 in the wild card. The mets have a 3 game lead and are trailing in the WC. The Mets are favorites to make the playoffs... not anywhere close to a "near lock".
   72. NTNgod Posted: June 25, 2007 at 01:18 AM (#2416193)
On a brief tangent, have you taken a look at the NL East intra-divisional records so far? It's pretty funny:

15-14 NYM
18-18 ATL
15-15 PHI
14-14 WAS
17-18 FLA
   73. Raskolnikov Posted: June 25, 2007 at 01:24 AM (#2416196)
Buerhle would be a pretty easy "re-sign" for the Mets (assuming they won something), and he's going to win another 150 games over the next 10 years.

He's the real deal.


And Milledge is going to hit 200 HRs, knock in 900 runs and score another 900 while providing excellent OF defense over the next 10 years. If we're going to go with the optimistic crystal ball here, I still take Milledge.

He's the real deal.
   74. Sam M. Posted: June 25, 2007 at 01:26 AM (#2416199)
Buerhle would be a pretty easy "re-sign" for the Mets (assuming they won something), and he's going to win another 150 games over the next 10 years.

Oh, my. I'm pretty sure there is NO pitcher I'd say that about with such breezy confidence. Not Santana, or Peavy, or Webb. Certainly not Buerhle. 150 wins? That's some prediction, Chris. Do you mean that literally, or for effect to make a point how easily you'd pull the trigger on a Milledge deal?
   75. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: June 25, 2007 at 01:30 AM (#2416203)
I'd consider that as the Mets, as they need a SP pretty badly and Milledge is a bit redundant (and head-casey) for them.

Buerhle would be an upgrade certainly but do the Mets really need a starter?

Duque- 2.77 ERA
Maine- 2.87 ERA
Perz- 3.16 ERA
Glavine- 4.38 ERA
Sosa- 4.05 ERA

Duque has been outstanding as Met as has Maine. Perez is going through a rough spot but he's been very good so far this season. Glavine will have an ERA around 4.00 or better by the end of the year. Sosa is an adequate 5th starter. And all of this with Pedro coming back in a month (we don't know what we'll get from him). In addition, they have 3 starters in AAA who would be decent options in the 5th spot in Pelfrey, Humber, and Vargas.

Remember, this is a team that is playing Green, Ledee, and Carlos Gomez in the corner outfield spots. Milledge is likely to be more of a help in the outfield than as a trading chip, especially considering the health problems of Alou and the possibility of a Green meltdown.
   76. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: June 25, 2007 at 01:58 AM (#2416227)
Mark is a good pitcher. But he's got the Matsuzaka dilemma: he's shown that he can throw a lot of innings, but then again, that arm's been through a lot of innings.

it's the reverse Beckett dilemma: he's never thrown a lot of innings, but then again, he's never thrown a lot of innings.

Also, F!@# any deal for Mark that involves B/B/Lowrie/Jacoby. Not giving up those 4 guys for a FA pitcher, unless his name is "J. Santana".
   77. Darren Posted: June 25, 2007 at 02:16 AM (#2416247)
Duque pitches about 1/2 the time and Glavine's at an age where you're not sure if he's going to lose it. I'd say 4.38 is a pretty good guess what he'll do going forward.

I'm sold on Perez and Maine as a decent #2/#3 combo (that Benson trade looks ridiculously good, as it did on paper at the time). Sosa's probably an adequate #5, which is fine.

I don't see a #1 starter here, and slotting in Buehrle at the top of the rotation makes the staff as a whole very strong.
   78. John DiFool2 Posted: June 25, 2007 at 02:16 AM (#2416248)
100% agreed on post #76. Save the money and prospects (if needed) for Santana. An extra year will allow many of our kids to strut their stuff in the majors, thus likely driving up their value (unless they stink of course).
   79. Darren Posted: June 25, 2007 at 02:31 AM (#2416257)
You know, I'm starting to come around on #76 as well.
   80. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 25, 2007 at 02:42 AM (#2416269)
Also, F!@# any deal for Mark that involves B/B/Lowrie/Jacoby.
Well, then #### any deal for Buehrle. Williams can get better offers elsewhere, surely.

Even if Schilling is hurt badly, you wouldn't offer any of those guys? (And, really, what's the point in saying that you'd offer one of them for Santana? He isn't available, and since he's much better than Buehrle, he'll cost much more, too.) I don't like trading for Buehrle if we can expect Schilling in the rotation, but if we can't, it makes sense to me, and I'm on the fence w/r/t including Bowden, though I don't like doing Bowden + Lowrie. I fear, here, that I'm still being a fanboy in the trades I'd do - where are the White Sox fans to offer equally unbalanced trades in the other direction? - but I'm sure that taking all of the top prospects in Portland and Pawtucket off the table is tantamount to walking away from Buehrle entirely.

I guess what I think is that if you don't want to make any midseason trades, that's fair. Statistically, as JBH points out well, they rarely make any sense. But what bugs me a bit is the stance that you'll make trades, but only trades that no other team run by a functional human being would accept - ie, take all the good prospects off the table. That just means you're against making trades for good players. Which, again, is a deeply defensible position - I just think you should be clear about it.
   81. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: June 25, 2007 at 03:37 AM (#2416297)
The thought of this trade angers me, if we give up too much.
   82. 1k5v3L Posted: June 25, 2007 at 03:43 AM (#2416302)
Oh, come on now, Red Sox fans, you gave up plenty for Beckett and Lowell, and that trade still worked out OK for the Red Sox.

Given the seven Hall of Famers in their system, the Sawx can certainly part with a couple of them for the best pitcher available on the trade market. Can't they?

By the way, am sure Livan Hernandez will come cheaper, if Theo is interested...
   83. CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo Posted: June 25, 2007 at 04:04 AM (#2416325)
where are the White Sox fans to offer equally unbalanced trades in the other direction?

Buchholz, Pedroia, Wily Mo and Lowrie for Buehrle and Iguchi, done deal. This is so easy, why can't I be a GM?

Speaking seriously for a second, I understand that Buchholz probably isn't going anywhere. The only way there's even a remote chance of Buchholz being included is if Kenny gives Theo a 72-hour extension window, and even then it's iffy -- if the Red Sox really like Buehrle that much, they can outbid 90% of teams as is when he becomes a free agent this winter.

Wily Mo is a guy that interests me and I'd guess Kenny as well. He appears to be blocked on the Red Sox for the near future and the White Sox can offer him their LF (or RF, once Dye is dealt) spot for the rest of this season and, so long as he's reasonably successful (hopefully 2006 type numbers, although I'd expect less batting average and less OBP but equal or better power), he'd be a fixture there for the foreseeable future.

After that, I'd imagine the next two guys Kenny is looking at are Ellsbury and Lowrie. I'd say those three for Buehrle would be a pretty good deal, but I understand that I'm opening myself up to some #### from Red Sox fans -- afterall, it's only (technically) three+ months of Buehrle for 12 years of Lowrie + Ellsbury along with Wily Mo. My only real response to that would be that the Sox don't have to trade Buehrle to Boston -- I've read there's already a couple of teams interested (Atlanta, Boston, New York) and I'd guess there's some teams out there who haven't been publicly mentioned (Dodgers) that also have interested in him. And I know it's not like you're supposed to sit around for that Kazmir-for-Zambrano deal, but as a fan, part of me hopes that a GM will step up in hopes to give their team one of the top lefties in all of baseball (even if it means sacrificing part of the future).
   84. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: June 25, 2007 at 04:11 AM (#2416332)
Oh, come on now, Red Sox fans, you gave up plenty for Beckett and Lowell, and that trade still worked out OK for the Red Sox.


At August last year, it looked like a dud.

Times change.
   85. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: June 25, 2007 at 04:26 AM (#2416343)
Oh, come on now, Red Sox fans, you gave up plenty for Beckett and Lowell, and that trade still worked out OK for the Red Sox.

You mean we gave up plenty for Beckett, and part of that plenty was being forced to take Lowell.
   86. Sam M. Posted: June 25, 2007 at 04:34 AM (#2416351)
Wily Mo and a second-tier prospect I'd do in a NY minute.

Which is why you wouldn't get Buehrle. Someone will ante up a Grade A prospect for him -- which is not to say it's a good idea, but somebody will do it. So if you don't think it's worth paying that price, then you have to reconcile yourself to the consequence of not getting Buehrle. Williams can do better.
   87. Chip Posted: June 25, 2007 at 04:39 AM (#2416353)
So someone will give up a major league player AND a Grade A prospect? For a rental?
   88. Sam M. Posted: June 25, 2007 at 04:44 AM (#2416355)
So someone will give up a major league player AND a Grade A prospect? For a rental?

Not necessarily, but they'll give a genuine Grade A prospect, and that will trump Willy Mo Pena and what I expect kevin means by a "second-tier" prospect.
   89. JB H Posted: June 25, 2007 at 05:19 AM (#2416368)
I guess what I think is that if you don't want to make any midseason trades, that's fair. Statistically, as JBH points out well, they rarely make any sense. But what bugs me a bit is the stance that you'll make trades, but only trades that no other team run by a functional human being would accept - ie, take all the good prospects off the table. That just means you're against making trades for good players. Which, again, is a deeply defensible position - I just think you should be clear about it.

Every move the Red Sox make should be to maximize world series titles (they're not the Orioles who should make moves to minimize the number of 68 win seasons).

World seriest titles = making the postseason probability * winning the postseason probability

I was gonna do some quick math to show that Buerhle is worth less to us than to a team fighting for the playoffs because we get virtually no value from Buerhle making us more likely to reach the postseason. That would show that we shouldn't get Buerhle if teams are at all rational. But actually working it out, he's worth more to us than the Dodgers or Brewers (independent of team specific needs) because we're guaranteed to get Buerhle's added ALDS value and more likely to get ALCS and WS value. So I am less in favor of standing pat as I was when I made my first post in this thread.

In general though, I don't think mid-season trades are good for these reasons:

- teams/fans wildly overestimate how big the upgrade is from average to good (or from a bad to a good set up guy)
- teams/fans wildly underestimate how valuable a worthwhile regular making 400k is

The one counter point to those reasons is that teams/fans also wildly overestimate how likely a B/B- pitching prospect is to become a worthwhile regular.
   90. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: June 25, 2007 at 06:23 AM (#2416384)
Wily Mo and a second-tier prospect I'd do in a NY minute.

I'll give up Coco and two second tier prospects.
   91. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: June 25, 2007 at 06:32 AM (#2416385)
The thing is MB is seemingly the only decent pitcher to be avalible this season, a lot more teams will be in on the bidding, many of whom less conservative than Boston.

In 5 years maybe 1 or 2 of the current red sox pitching prospects will be major league starters and most of these deal percved as "giving away too much", will look like robbery.
   92. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: June 25, 2007 at 06:33 AM (#2416386)
oh, and wily mo isn't worth a damn thing, not to the red sox not to anyone.
   93. NTNgod Posted: June 25, 2007 at 06:58 AM (#2416391)
While the Red Sox are indeed interested in talking about Buehrle, it’s unlikely that they would invest in him long term. More likely, the Sox would rent Buehrle for the final two months, then offer him salary arbitration and gain draft picks as compensation.

If the White Sox are intent on wrestling Clay Buchholz or Jacoby Ellsbury from the Sox in exchange, the conversation will be over quickly. The Sox would be willing to part with some other prospects, but Buchholz and Ellsbury are strictly off-limits.
Providence Journal - McAdam
   94. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: June 25, 2007 at 07:04 AM (#2416393)
*heart rate lowers by 10 beat/min*
   95. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 25, 2007 at 08:21 AM (#2416409)
oh, and wily mo isn't worth a damn thing

he's young, he's under control for another year and a half, he's cheap, and he can rake. he's a valuable commodity.
   96. Raskolnikov Posted: June 25, 2007 at 09:54 AM (#2416413)
Duque pitches about 1/2 the time and Glavine's at an age where you're not sure if he's going to lose it. I'd say 4.38 is a pretty good guess what he'll do going forward.

I'm sold on Perez and Maine as a decent #2/#3 combo (that Benson trade looks ridiculously good, as it did on paper at the time). Sosa's probably an adequate #5, which is fine.

I don't see a #1 starter here, and slotting in Buehrle at the top of the rotation makes the staff as a whole very strong.


When does adding Buehrle ever not make a rotation look even better? I just don't want to give up the Grade A prospect that it seems some team will do for Buehrle. Pedro is the key for this coming playoffs. And if we're going to discuss Milledge, I'd hold out for a Zambrano that can put up his old numbers.
   97. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: June 25, 2007 at 12:09 PM (#2416435)
And if we're going to discuss Milledge, I'd hold out for a Zambrano that can put up his old numbers.

Zambrano has been dominant in his last 4 starts. Maybe fighting Barrett fixed his mechanics or something of that nature but here are his numbers since the fight.

31.2 IP, 35/10 K/BB, 1.14 ERA, 13 H, 3 HR.

I personally think if he makes it to free agency, he'll be a Met next season. I'd give up Milledge or Gomez for him if that's what it takes to get him before that.
   98. John DiFool2 Posted: June 25, 2007 at 02:14 PM (#2416520)
Buerhle would be a pretty easy "re-sign" for the Mets (assuming they won something), and he's going to win another 150 games over the next 10 years.

He's the real deal.


[Didn't see the above until this morning] Short term he looks pretty good Chris-but did you peruse the list of comps I provided upthread? Fully half of Buehrle's comps were toast by age 31; Buehrle is the kind of guy who lives on the edge-Tom Glavine has pitched on that edge for more than 10 years now but he's pretty unique. For every Glavine you have there are 10 Dan Petrys; if Buehrle slips off that edge he'll be dogmeat in a NY minute. I don't make this gamble then for more than ONE of our A list prospects (or Wily Mo) with maybe a B- guy thrown in. If the Mets want to piss their future away by outbidding Boston let them knock themselves out.

And what JBH said in post 90. I am now Kason Gabbard's biggest fan WRT his Tuesday night start.
   99. Mister High Standards Posted: June 25, 2007 at 02:28 PM (#2416540)
I'd be willing to do Lowrie, Wily Mo and C'ish prospect for Buehrle, though that would probably be my best offer. I'd also be willing to do Bowden and a C prospect or two. Wily Mo and Bowden. I can't imagine that would get it done from the CWS perspective, then again I assume Kenny Williams has the same thoughts on Lowrie that I have, rather than the opinion that the some of the posters here have which are far more bullish than I am. I see him as more of a utility guy, or stretch regular then an every day player.
   100. chris p Posted: June 25, 2007 at 03:05 PM (#2416573)
if we're talking about a trade involving lowrie the key is whether he is a shortstop or a second baseman. if he's a shortstop, that's a really nice prospect, but if he's a second baseman, he's blocked ... unless we think petunia can play short. so ... is lowrie a SS or a 2B?

I'd be willing to do Lowrie, Wily Mo and C'ish prospect for Buehrle, though that would probably be my best offer.

if lowrie iis a shortstop i agree. i'd up that to a B-'ish if we're talking about lowrie as a 2B. wily mo seems like a good fit for chicago.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.9063 seconds
60 querie(s) executed