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 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   101. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:11 PM (#3270658)
Does this mean Baldelli's hurt or something and no one's said anything about it? Or that Ellsbury may be a cog in a big deal? I'm really confused.


I can't imagine this is anything more than insurance. I can't see a situation where Theo Epstein is saying "hey, if we trade Ellsbury, Brian Anderson wouldn't be a complete disaster replacing him."
   102. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:11 PM (#3270659)
For Mark Kotsay!

Weird.
   103. jmurph Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:13 PM (#3270665)
For Mark Kotsay!


Ok, so just a throwaway trade for both, essentially.
   104. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:13 PM (#3270667)
Give Theo credit, neither deal will likely do anything for the Sox but he's unloaded two useless pieces (Lugo and Kotsay) and received two potentially useful pieces (Duncan and Anderson). In all likelihood neither guy will ever help the Red Sox win a game of any importance (i.e. a game not played in Florida before April 1st) but it's something.
   105. Marcel Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:17 PM (#3270670)
Sox are reportedly offering Buchholz, Bowden, and Westmoreland for Halladay.
Link
   106. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:21 PM (#3270675)
Brian Anderson had the tools to be a good big leaguer. He's cratered, but Mark Kotsay was not going to help the 2009 Red Sox, and Brian Anderson has a small chance of helping a future Sox team. Can't argue with that.

I also like that offer from the Sox. As I was saying back earlier in the thread, Halladay's worth it.
   107. jmurph Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:24 PM (#3270684)
I also like that offer from the Sox. As I was saying back earlier in the thread, Halladay's worth it.


What else would need to be added to get Scutaro? And would it be worth it?

Incidentally: Halladay/Beckett/Lester. I could get used to that.
   108. Marcel Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:26 PM (#3270686)
What else would need to be added to get Scutaro? And would it be worth it?

Probably Lowrie, as the Jays are looking for a SS as part of the return for Halladay.
   109. OCD SS Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:32 PM (#3270691)
What else would need to be added to get Scutaro? And would it be worth it?


I don't get the Scutaro love.

He's having a huge career year at the age of 34. He looks like he could be a victim of the same fall off the cliff Lugo had when he was traded to LA.

I certainly wouldn't give up 5+ yrs of Lowrie for him.
   110. jmurph Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:33 PM (#3270694)
He's having a huge career year at the age of 34.


Eh, he's a free agent. It's a rental. That said, I also would not put Lowrie in that deal for him.
   111. Textbook Editor Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:37 PM (#3270703)
Buchholz AND Bowden. Huh. I had thought this was not an option as far as offers go, and doing this would leave us a little bit short after 2010, wouldn't it? I mean , even if you were able to re-sign Halladay, he'd be entering his age-34 season in 2011... And I am not at all sure Halladay would be open to an extension prior to being a FA, even if you paid him $20 million/year.

If this offer is valid, the Jays would be pretty foolish to turn this down, unless the Yankees countered with something like Joba + Montero + someone else.
   112. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:38 PM (#3270708)
I certainly wouldn't give up five years of Lowrie for Scutaro, but unless Jed Lowrie starts hitting, the Red Sox are going to need someone to replace the next two months of Jed Lowrie, and Scutaro would be a very nice upgrade. (If Lowrie's still hurt, that is.)

By the way, since the trade, Adam LaRoche has started every game but one. Looks like he's a lot more than a bench bat. He's also taken to batting in Fenway very quickly, and seems to have a great stroke for the place.
   113. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:42 PM (#3270723)
Buchholz AND Bowden. Huh. I had thought this was not an option as far as offers go, and doing this would leave us a little bit short after 2010, wouldn't it?
Sure. It would also give us a front three of Halladay/Lester/Beckett for 2009 and 2010. I know which I think is more important.

Q: How do people who aren't Red Sox or Phillies fans rate the packages of Buchholz/Bowden/Westmoreland and Drabek/Brown/that other guy?
   114. 1k5v3L Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:42 PM (#3270724)
Buchholz AND Bowden.
Bowden stock seems to have dropped significantly lately. Dropping K rates with increasing fly ball and home run tendencies (in the IL to boot) will do that to a prospect. Thank god Gammo's still around to salivate all over him.
   115. Joel W Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:43 PM (#3270729)
I think you have to do that for Halladay also. You get a year and a half of him at minimum plus the two draft picks that come along with him if you lose him.
   116. Textbook Editor Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:52 PM (#3270742)
I support trying to get rings in 2009 and 2010, sure, and I don't want to just be the Atlanta Braves from 1996-2006... I guess part of my skepticism here on the worthwhile-ness of the trade is that I very much doubt we re-sign Halladay to any kind of deal post-2010, which means you're basically giving up 9-10+ years of serviceable pitching (and perhaps a lot more) for 1.3 years of admittedly excellent pitching... And that's before even getting to the Westmoreland part.
   117. Joel W Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:53 PM (#3270746)
I agree with Levski, Bowden just doesn't impress me that much. I'm much more excited about Tazawa. A team with Halladay in 2009 and 2010 just looks great. You'd have 3 of the top 6 pitchers in the AL in FIP on your team, plus an incredibly deep bullpen. It'd be a team incredibly well suited to do well in the playoffs, and I think you just do it.

As to LaRoche, I completely agree. He looks comfortable going the opposite way towards the wall, and seems like he'll be a more-than-solid contributor.
   118. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:55 PM (#3270753)
guess part of my skepticism here on the worthwhile-ness of the trade is that I very much doubt we re-sign Halladay to any kind of deal post-2010


Assuming Halladay performs as well as he has been, why would the Sox not have a huge upper hand in re-signing him? At the very least the price tag on Halladay would be so prohibitive that whatever team did sign him would be paying out the ass.
   119. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:57 PM (#3270756)
So if this trade gets made the Sox would then enter 2011 with a rotation likely made up of;

Lester, Matsuzaka, one of Beckett/Halladay, and two as yet unfilled slots. I don't think it's unreasonable that one of those slots could be filled by someone from the Masterson/Tazawa/Kelly/Pimentel/Doubront bunch leaving the Sox in need of one more starter. Without looking at the other teams around the game how many teams would be looking at their 2011 rotation, as of today, and feeling as good about it. And if we can get to that moment with one, or dare to dream, two more ring ceremonies at Fenway that wouldn't be a bad thing.
   120. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:57 PM (#3270757)
you're basically giving up 9-10+ years of serviceable pitching (and perhaps a lot more) for 1.3 years of admittedly excellent pitching
That's massively understating the risk of burnout from a young pitcher. I'd say you're at least three times more likely to get 1.3 excellent years out of Halladay than you are to get 9-10 serviceable or better years out of Buchholz and Bowden.
   121. JC in DC Posted: July 28, 2009 at 07:58 PM (#3270760)
Q: How do people who aren't Red Sox or Phillies fans rate the packages of Buchholz/Bowden/Westmoreland and Drabek/Brown/that other guy?


I'd feel like Theo was getting a good deal. I agree with you about going after Halladay. If NY could do it for Montero+Hughes (or Chamberlain), I'd do it, which places me I think in the minority of posters.
   122. Cowboy Popup Posted: July 28, 2009 at 08:03 PM (#3270769)
Give Theo credit, neither deal will likely do anything for the Sox but he's unloaded two useless pieces (Lugo and Kotsay)

I don't think you can call Lugo a useless piece. He's been pretty useful for the Cards so far. He can't play SS anymore but it looks like he can fake it at second and still hit the ball a little bit. He's got some value, especially in the NL.

If this offer is valid, the Jays would be pretty foolish to turn this down, unless the Yankees countered with something like Joba + Montero + someone else.

I don't think the Yanks would have to offer that much to top a Buchholz/Bowden package. Montero is significantly more valuable than Bowden and Joba is at least as valuable as Buchholz.

If NY could do it for Montero+Hughes (or Chamberlain), I'd do it, which places me I think in the minority of posters.

I think that would be a massive overpay for a year and a half of Halladay and would blow any of the other offered packages out of the water.
   123. Marcel Posted: July 28, 2009 at 08:07 PM (#3270775)
Buchholz AND Bowden. Huh. I had thought this was not an option as far as offers go, and doing this would leave us a little bit short after 2010, wouldn't it? I mean , even if you were able to re-sign Halladay, he'd be entering his age-34 season in 2011... And I am not at all sure Halladay would be open to an extension prior to being a FA, even if you paid him $20 million/year.

I think that the excellent performances from Kelley and Tazawa this year have made Bowden expendable (not that he was ever really a great prospect imo.) Tazawa could probably be a decent back-end starter in the majors right now and, if he keeps dominating the minors like he did this year, Kelley could be ready to step into the rotation by mid-2011.
   124. The Original SJ Posted: July 28, 2009 at 08:07 PM (#3270778)
I'd feel like Theo was getting a good deal. I agree with you about going after Halladay. If NY could do it for Montero+Hughes (or Chamberlain), I'd do it, which places me I think in the minority of posters.

I do not agree with you. Because I believe the children are the future.
   125. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2009 at 08:22 PM (#3270798)
I definitely agree that Montero + Joba beats what the Sox are offering, and the failed Phils trade.

My guess is that the problem is that, no matter how much BA and Goldstein and everybody loves Montero, the Jays are going to demand MLB-ready talent, too, and the Yankees would be hard-pressed to create a deal of Montero + mlb-ready talent that could get the job done, and didn't include at least Hughes. So the Yankees are in worse position than the Red Sox, just due to the arrangement of talent.
   126. JC in DC Posted: July 28, 2009 at 08:51 PM (#3270856)
I think that's right, Matt, unless as I heard yesterday the idea, if they trade Halladay, is to build for a few years from now.

I disagree w/my Yankees' fellow-travelers. I love Montero's prospects, but they're just that. I'd rather have a shot at a WS this year and next with Sabathia, Halladay, Burnett, and either Hughes or Joba (assuming one has to go), then Montero 2-3 years from now. I'll worry about adding prospects via int'l free agency and the draft later.
   127. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:05 PM (#3270879)
If NY could do it for Montero+Hughes (or Chamberlain), I'd do it, which places me I think in the minority of posters.

No way. I think Hughes will be an above average SP next year (or now if we could shake the 8th inning fixation), and a well above average SP in 2011 and beyond. I think Montero could be an All-Star catcher in 2011 or 2012. Montero's ceiling looks like top-5 hitter in baseball.

You can't trade that.
   128. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:06 PM (#3270882)
Latest is the Sox did not make the Buchholz/Bowden offer.
   129. philly Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:07 PM (#3270886)
Q: How do people who aren't Red Sox or Phillies fans rate the packages of Buchholz/Bowden/Westmoreland and Drabek/Brown/that other guy?


First heard about this sox offer driving around listening to the Philly sports station that was talking about it. So I've been mulling which is better as I drove home...

I'd say the Phillies package that Tor wanted is better largely because the Phillie package is more MLB ready. Happ is performing in the majos and Bowden is just in AAA. Buchholz is more ready that Drabek and a better prospect overall. But as good as Wsestmorland has been in Lowell, it would be a fantastic outcome if a year form now he's as good as Brown is in Hi-A with a AA promotion immininent.

Maybe you love Buchholz or think more highly of Bowden than I do, but I think the Sox supposed offer is a shade worse than what the Jays want from the Phillies laregley because Brown is much more established than Westmorland.

Otoh, I'm not sure I really buy Theo actually offering that much young talent for a starter. This Sox package so closely matches the Phillies in player types that it seems more like a continuation of the Jays fishing around for a package that is at least 90% of what they want.

The supposed Sox package is much better than the supposed Phillies counter of Carrasco, Taylor, Donald and Marson.

This might just be Tor leaking that they can get pretty close to what they want from Philly.
   130. 1k5v3L Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:10 PM (#3270896)
Latest is the Sox did not make the Buchholz/Bowden offer.
In fact, Theo offered 3 Cubans.
   131. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:17 PM (#3270909)
If Ellsbury becomes a significant part of a package to get Adrian Gonzalez or Victor Martinez (the latter being admittedly unlikely given the Indians' CF situation), and assuming the Sox think Baldelli can stay healthy, I'd gladly suffer through a Brian N. Anderson/Baldelli CF platoon.
   132. JC in DC Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:24 PM (#3270927)
I think Hughes will be an above average SP next year (or now if we could shake the 8th inning fixation), and a well above average SP in 2011 and beyond. I think Montero could be an All-Star catcher in 2011 or 2012. Montero's ceiling looks like top-5 hitter in baseball.


I really want Hughes to succeed, but he's provided almost no evidence this year that he can be an "above average SP". He's been excellent in a short relief role, relying on 2 pitches. Wonderful. I hope it gives him confidence, and I hope he does well in the future. But he and Chamberlain still are under innings restrictions, still are relative unknowns (CHamberlain less so, of course), and while Montero's ceiling might be Pujols and his floor might be Albert Belle, I'm still moving him for one of the top 3 SPs in the AL.
   133. Raskolnikov Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:29 PM (#3270937)
I think Montero could be an All-Star catcher in 2011 or 2012.

What? Doesn't everyone pretty much agree that Montero won't stick as a catcher? Sickels, Goldstein, etc. Montero will likely be an All Star 1B at some point given his profile.

while Montero's ceiling might be Pujols and his floor might be Albert Belle

I'm the worst person to criticize given my irrational faith in Fernando, but you're joking here right?
   134. JC in DC Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:31 PM (#3270940)
Of course.

edit: I haven't seen my fellow Yanks fans as gaga over a prospect since Eric Duncan, Sam Militello, or Hensley Meulens.
   135. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:32 PM (#3270943)
What? Doesn't everyone pretty much agree that Montero won't stick as a catcher? Sickels, Goldstein, etc. Montero will likely be an All Star 1B at some point given his profile.


Each year they've become a little less certain about that. I still suspect he won't catch in the majors (save maybe as the 3rd/emergency catcher on the roster) but the chances are better than they were last year. Callis, I believe, has said he thinks he may be able to handle LF as well, which would be nice given the Yankees roster.
   136. Raskolnikov Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:34 PM (#3270946)
BTW, TVerik would be proud. A nicely executed Yankees Hijack - in a Sox Therapy thread.
   137. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:34 PM (#3270947)
What? Doesn't everyone pretty much agree that Montero won't stick as a catcher? Sickels, Goldstein, etc. Montero will likely be an All Star 1B at some point given his profile.

Reports are he's made big strides. Throwing out 30% of runners in AA and reducing PB.

He's looking like he has a chance to stick for a few years in a Piazza-esque fashion.
   138. tfbg9 Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:37 PM (#3270954)
How hard has Buchholz been throwing this year? Sox Prospects.com sez he can sit 94 and hit 97, but that's not the kid
I see when I tune in. He sits 91 whenever I've watched--but I've not seen this year's model.
   139. Cowboy Popup Posted: July 28, 2009 at 09:57 PM (#3270977)
I love Montero's prospects, but they're just that. I'd rather have a shot at a WS this year and next with Sabathia, Halladay, Burnett, and either Hughes or Joba (assuming one has to go), then Montero 2-3 years from now.

The Yanks have a shot at the WS right now with the roster built as it is. They have the best record in the AL.

I really want Hughes to succeed, but he's provided almost no evidence this year that he can be an "above average SP". He's been excellent in a short relief role, relying on 2 pitches. Wonderful. I hope it gives him confidence, and I hope he does well in the future.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by almost no evidence but he had a great K rate as a starter (31 Ks in 34 and 2/3 IP). What he struggled with as a starter was his control, which had gotten better when he was starting (3 walks in his last three starts) and has continued to improve in the pen (5 UIBBs as a reliever). There is plenty of reason to believe that Hughes will be a capable starter next year. I think there's plenty of reason to believe he's one right now.

I'm still moving him for one of the top 3 SPs in the AL.

Why not just wait a year and a half and sign him when all it will cost is money. The Yanks are set up well for this year and next. It'll be two years down the road where things get tricky again, that's why I want them to keep as much young, cheap talent as possible.

I haven't seen my fellow Yanks fans as gaga over a prospect since Eric Duncan, Sam Militello, or Hensley Meulens.

Montero is a much better prospect and a much better bet to be a real contributor than Duncan. I don't even remember anyone being excited about Duncan. I don't even know who the other two are other than what their BBref pages say.

I see when I tune in. He sits 91 whenever I've watched--but I've not seen this year's model.

Fangraphs has him at 93.1 this year.
   140. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2009 at 10:28 PM (#3271027)
I see when I tune in. He sits 91 whenever I've watched--but I've not seen this year's model.

Fangraphs has him at 93.1 this year.


Great minds think alike :-) I gave the same answer in the other thread.
   141. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: July 28, 2009 at 11:28 PM (#3271120)
Wouldn't it be impossible to trade Westmoreland before the deadline anyway, since he was drafted last year?
   142. A Random 8-Year-Old Eskimo Posted: July 28, 2009 at 11:39 PM (#3271153)
Why not just wait a year and a half and sign him when all it will cost is money.

Because there's no guarantee he'll sign with the Yankees? And yes, that means that acquring him might be a rental, but you can make the argument it's worth the price. The Yankees may have a shot at the WS right now, but adding one of the best 3 SPs in baseball certainly increases their odds.
   143. Joel W Posted: July 29, 2009 at 01:13 AM (#3271456)
Petunia, you just make it a PTBNL which everybody knows is Westmoreland, no?
   144. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 29, 2009 at 03:34 AM (#3271849)
TRADE EVERYBODY!!!!!
   145. RollingWave Posted: July 29, 2009 at 03:49 AM (#3271859)
TRADE EVERYBODY!!!!!
I knew immediately to check the scores when I see this. that was... ummm. ouch. blowing a 6:2 lead against Oakland?
   146. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: July 29, 2009 at 05:28 AM (#3271892)
143: Yeah, duh. Brain fart on my part. Thanks. They do do that all the time, don't they.
   147. Mattbert Posted: July 29, 2009 at 01:59 PM (#3272049)
"Bam Bam" Meulens was The Next Big Thing in the Yankees' system about 20 years ago. Big time power. I had several of his baseball cards when I was kid, and he was usually part of those "Future Stars" or "Top Prospects" groups they'd put out. I think he flamed out and then went to Japan for a bit.

Yep...and Wikipedia says he speaks five languages too! English, Spanish, Dutch, Papiamento and Japanese. Impressive.
   148. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: July 29, 2009 at 02:08 PM (#3272062)
Maybe the Sox should trade Papelbon while his value is still sky high.
   149. OCD SS Posted: July 29, 2009 at 02:22 PM (#3272091)
Temple had a really good point regarding Westmoreland. While he may not have a NTC, he could concieveably have language in his contract that says he can keep his total bonus if he quits baseball and goes to college. Such language would be a defacto NTC since he'd be likely to just go to school and play another sport. Of course there's no way to really know, and Gammons' is not being terribly specific.

Edes also has a new report:

The Boston Red Sox have offered at least three players, including no-hit pitcher Clay Buchholz, to the Toronto Blue Jays for ace Roy Halladay, according to sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations, while placing rookie reliever Daniel Bard and 19-year-old phenom Casey Kelly off-limits in any deal.

The Blue Jays have been given the choice of reliever Justin Masterson, Triple-A pitcher Michael Bowden, or Double-A first baseman Lars Anderson as the second player in the deal, with lesser prospects from the Red Sox system filling out the Boston offer. The Red Sox from the beginning have included Buchholz because the Blue Jays had made it clear he would have to be the starting point of any deal.
   150. 1k5v3L Posted: July 29, 2009 at 02:26 PM (#3272097)
Maybe the Sox should trade Papelbon while his value is still sky high.
It is?
   151. Joel W Posted: July 29, 2009 at 02:38 PM (#3272124)
Despite Papelbon's outing last night, I looked at his splits this year w/ runners on and bases empty. They're so strong it feels like they have to be real, i.e. that he's using the "new" motion with the bases empty, and the "old" one with men on:

None on: .286 .368 .416
Men on: .193 .284 .284
Scoring: .131 .250 .213

And in 8 PAs with the bases loaded: 7Ks

As for last night, awful as it was, it wasn't really Pap's fault. Green was just really, really dumb.
   152. Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'. Posted: July 29, 2009 at 03:02 PM (#3272171)
Papelbon will have less value than some might think at the deadline for two reasons. He's about to start getting paid and sellers are not prioritizing "closers" in return.
   153. Joel W Posted: July 29, 2009 at 03:05 PM (#3272175)
They're not trading Papelbon, because anybody who valued him would think "wait, why are they trading him, what's wrong with him?" The only way they could get good value out of him is if everybody thought he was a problem in the clubhouse, because then his skill level would be fine.
   154. OCD SS Posted: July 29, 2009 at 04:59 PM (#3272396)
Wilson was just traded to the Mariners along with Snell, so we can cross him off our SS list...
   155. Mattbert Posted: July 29, 2009 at 11:35 PM (#3273080)
Hmmm, I feel like the Sox could have matched the Phils' package for Cliff Lee and not really gutted the farm system much. Reckon the Tribe would've accepted something centered around Bowden, Reddick/Kalish, and a couple other prospects or a major-league ready guy like Masterson?
   156. Joel W Posted: July 29, 2009 at 11:54 PM (#3273130)
I felt the same way when I saw that. We could have beaten that package. Granted, it's 2 months of Lee, not a year and 2 months.
   157. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 29, 2009 at 11:56 PM (#3273137)
I felt the same way when I saw that. We could have beaten that package. Granted, it's 2 months of Lee, not a year and 2 months.

Nope, he's got a very reasonable team option. ~$8M.
   158. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 30, 2009 at 02:35 AM (#3273298)

Hmmm, I feel like the Sox could have matched the Phils' package for Cliff Lee and not really gutted the farm system much. Reckon the Tribe would've accepted something centered around Bowden, Reddick/Kalish, and a couple other prospects or a major-league ready guy like Masterson?


I read this in another forum, it's an actual media article:

Last week, two of the game's executives, despite being hundreds of miles away from one another, were downright stereophonic in their assessment of the Red Sox. The Sox are growing arrogant, they said. They overvalue their prospects. The success of young Boston players from Jon Lester and Jonathan Papelbon to Dustin Pedroia and Jacoby Ellsbury has created an unrealistic outlook in the Boston organization, not to mention an inflation of the Boston farm system perpetuated by the Sox' subwoofers in the media.

Yes, with regard to drafting and player development, the Red Sox have been good. But they have not been that good because there is a great deal of luck involved, too.


The logic: Becasue our farm has had success, people won't deal with us now because our prospects cost more due to the system having recent success.
   159. Darren Posted: July 30, 2009 at 02:50 AM (#3273312)
But what does Cliff Lee really add? He's a good pitcher, but how much better than what we have? Halladay is a great pitcher and a certain large upgrade to the rotation. He's worth going hard after.

One thing I've been wondering is, if the Sox are willing to deal so much for Halladay, how much more, if any, would Hanley cost? Wouldn't he be worth it too?
   160. Joel W Posted: July 30, 2009 at 02:57 AM (#3273317)
Hanley would be worth basically every piece of the farm, especially with the current team.
   161. Darren Posted: July 30, 2009 at 03:03 AM (#3273322)
I can't believe Hanley is hitting .348--he's basically morphed into Nomar with better speed and a worse glove.
   162. tfbg9 Posted: July 30, 2009 at 03:10 AM (#3273325)
OK, we suck now.We pitch but don't hit, then hit but don't pitch.

What are the Jays asking for? I mean if Buchholz, Bowden, Lars and Reddick get it done, then do it.
Flags fly forever.

I agree on the Hanley point as well, as long as he can be a SS for 80% of his contract duration. A lot of his
value is positional for me, especially to the Red Sox as currently rostered.

Hey--Texas lost!
   163. RollingWave Posted: July 30, 2009 at 03:14 AM (#3273328)
If Hanley doesn't suffer from injuries like Nomar, he's almost a sure lock for the HOF .
   164. Hugh Jorgan Posted: July 30, 2009 at 03:52 AM (#3273350)
If Hanley doesn't suffer from injuries like Nomar, he's almost a sure lock for the HOF

Yeah well, if I wasn't 44, married with 5 kids, average looking and living in Sydney I could be dating Megan Fox.

Hanley is off to a nice start, let's see if he can string 10 years together before we start talking HOF. Granted though, as tfbg9 asked, what's required and should we be going after this guy?
   165. Dan Posted: July 30, 2009 at 04:58 AM (#3273398)
I don't know if it'll happen or not, but I'm hoping that the Sox can swing a big deal of some sort. The team just seems to be in a lull.
   166. OCD SS Posted: July 30, 2009 at 11:26 AM (#3273453)
At this point I wonder if the Sox have enough to land VMart and Halladay. Probably not, unless everyone else has backed off these guys.

Somebody needs to bang the juke box.
   167. Mattbert Posted: July 30, 2009 at 12:58 PM (#3273498)
But what does Cliff Lee really add? He's a good pitcher, but how much better than what we have?

He's better than every non-Beckster starter we've got, isn't he? And reasonably priced for a season and a half. I feel like he would've been well worth acquiring if Cleveland would've accepted a package similar to what I mentioned above.
   168. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 30, 2009 at 01:25 PM (#3273526)
Somebody needs to bang the juke box.

I say we drag the juke box to the alley and shoot it in the head.
   169. villageidiom Posted: July 30, 2009 at 01:37 PM (#3273541)
Last week, two of the game's executives, despite being hundreds of miles away from one another, were downright stereophonic in their assessment of the Red Sox. The Sox are growing arrogant, they said. They overvalue their prospects. The success of young Boston players from Jon Lester and Jonathan Papelbon to Dustin Pedroia and Jacoby Ellsbury has created an unrealistic outlook in the Boston organization, not to mention an inflation of the Boston farm system perpetuated by the Sox' subwoofers in the media.
There's no reason they'd even form this impression if they didn't want Boston's prospects in the first place. If Boston is overvaluing prospects those executives didn't want, the executives would have no idea. Ultimately this comes down to the opinions of two people who want - but can't have - Boston's prospects. They could be absolutely right, or they could just be wishing they didn't have to pay top dollar for what they want. Boston could be arrogant, or these two executives could be arrogant.

It's been clear to me for a few years now that Boston overvalues their prospects relative to how many other teams value them. But that doesn't mean Boston is overvaluing in an absolute sense; it could very well mean that they're right and the league is wrong. It could be that the league undervalues prospects. It could be that the league is generally worse at developing prospects, making them less sure of the value they have than the Red Sox are of theirs. It could be a lot of things, as prospect valuation is a rather complex matter. To be honest, it is - gasp! - a market inefficiency.

Beats me whether Boston is actually exploiting it, they think they're exploiting it, or they're just playing hard-to-get.
   170. Joel W Posted: July 30, 2009 at 02:49 PM (#3273620)
Certainly with pitchers, VI, I think the Sox have to think right now that they have a huge advantage in developing pitchers as compared to the rest of the league. So perhaps, all parties are correct in their valuations of their products. Who is the last Red Sox pitching prospect to flame out because of injury?
   171. 1k5v3L Posted: July 30, 2009 at 02:58 PM (#3273632)
Who is the last Red Sox pitching prospect to flame out because of injury?
Why, it's Casey #### Fossum, of course. Thanks for nothing, Colangelo and Garagiola Jr. (aka Dumb and Dumber).
   172. Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'. Posted: July 30, 2009 at 03:06 PM (#3273640)
Re 169...what I think happens is that the Boston FO might have a tendency to point to its recent record of developing players as evidence that their next crop of prospects will also be very good. Smartly, they probably try and use their recent track record as trading leverage.

The downside is that I can see this rubbing their peers the wrong way because I have to believe they consider themselves perfectly capable of evaluating Boston's prospects here and now for what they are, regardless of how good Jacoby Ellsbury, Jon Lester, Kevin Youkilis and Dustin Pedroia have become.
   173. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: July 30, 2009 at 04:17 PM (#3273710)
Re 169...what I think happens is that the Boston FO might have a tendency to point to its recent record of developing players as evidence that their next crop of prospects will also be very good. Smartly, they probably try and use their recent track record as trading leverage.

But the problem seems to be that there's a disconnect between what they say and what they do. On some level the Red Sox obviously believe that Buchholz is going to be a good MLB pitcher. But their plan for 2009 apparently was to keep him in AAA so that they could use a combination of injured guys as their fifth starter. What's the point of that? Did Buchholz really have anything left to prove at AAA? His 2009 AAA numbers are very similar to his 2008 AAA numbers. Why wouldn't you go into 2009 with Buchholz as Option A for fifth starter, and find some journeyman innings eater (to sit at AAA and, if something happens to Buchholz, to become Option B as fifth starter). Then you could have spent the $10.5 million (Smoltz + Penny's salaries) on something more helpful to the team than 140 innings pitched with a 5.50 ERA.

See also the Angels ("we can't trade this prospect -- he's too valuable -- but we also don't plan on playing him").
   174. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 30, 2009 at 04:28 PM (#3273721)
Then you could have spent the $10.5 million (Smoltz + Penny's salaries) on something more helpful to the team than 140 innings pitched with a 5.50 ERA.

Well, the assumption was that Penny would be traded in the middle of the season and Smoltz would be badass, but the former can't happen now because Fat Jap #### the bed and SMoltz isn't quite Smoltz.

Apparently the word on the street is that WE rejected Buchholz for V-Mart. Which I agree with, because if V-Mart can't stay at C he's not that valuable going forward (after this year).

I'd still trade Bowden and Delcarmen for him in an instant though.
   175. 1k5v3L Posted: July 30, 2009 at 04:32 PM (#3273729)

I'd still trade Bowden and Delcarmen for him in an instant though.
Wow, why would you trade a guy with 3.09 ERA in the IL?
   176. Joel W Posted: July 30, 2009 at 04:35 PM (#3273734)
Because his K rate sucks, his K/BB is mediocre at best, and he hasn't excelled at keeping the ball in the park. He was much, much better last year. Perhaps I'm focusing too much on short-term results, but his season has not been that good.
   177. 1k5v3L Posted: July 30, 2009 at 04:40 PM (#3273752)
JoelW, nicely said - but I was also being facetious with Wok, in light of his comment in the "Let's Find a Catcher!" thread.
   178. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 30, 2009 at 04:41 PM (#3273758)

JoelW, nicely said - but I was also being facetious with Wok, in light of his comment in the "Let's Find a Catcher!" thread.


You're the giant vagina that said he will have zero trade value by the end of the season.
Edit: I have not said anything contradictory. "He still has trade value" and "I would like to trade him in a deal for Victor Martinez" are not contradictory.
   179. 1k5v3L Posted: July 30, 2009 at 04:50 PM (#3273790)
Nice trash talking, Wok. As if you'd know what a vagina looks like.

Anyhow, in the other thread I wrote "Not sure if, let's say, Bowden will have any trade value left by that time [this coming offseason]". Given that his trade value seems to have been dropping a lot this season, along with his peripherals, it's fair to wonder how much trade value he'll really have at season's end. I didn't say he'd have zero trade value. For all I know, he may figure stuff out in the next two months and strongly enhance his value, as a trade bait and as a potential starter in Boston's rotation next year. But he'll have to start figuring stuff out sooner than later.
   180. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 30, 2009 at 05:09 PM (#3273849)
If you question something "will have any trade value left", it means you're implying there will be none left
   181. 1k5v3L Posted: July 30, 2009 at 05:18 PM (#3273875)
Well, I meant any value left to acquire a good starting catcher, but that's just how a giant vagina in Wok's world speaks...
   182. villageidiom Posted: July 30, 2009 at 05:19 PM (#3273879)
Who is the last Red Sox pitching prospect to flame out because of injury?
I was going to go with Carl Pavano, but levski is probably more correct.
On some level the Red Sox obviously believe that Buchholz is going to be a good MLB pitcher. But their plan for 2009 apparently was to keep him in AAA so that they could use a combination of injured guys as their fifth starter. What's the point of that? Did Buchholz really have anything left to prove at AAA?
Buchholz needs to prove that, when life becomes challenging, he can rise to the challenge. When he needs to work hard, he'll work hard. Buchholz has massive talent, so much so that success came pretty easily to him. Last year was the first time in his life that his talent wasn't enough, and he fell apart.

I'd say (a) only in MLB can he prove what he needs to prove; and (b) the team couldn't afford to go into 2009 with him as a major part of their 2009 MLB plans, as there was no reliable plan B in case he failed. There's really no plan B now, except hope that Wakefield can come back soon.

There will always be a disconnect between what the team says and what they do, because it's not always in their interest to say what they're doing.
   183. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: July 30, 2009 at 05:21 PM (#3273886)
A lot of trash talk right now, but all based on speculation.

Here's what we know about Bowden vs. Buchholz:

Bowden is 22 years old (23 in September); Buchholz is 24 (will be 25 in a couple of weeks). Buchholz is almost exactly 2 years older.

When Buchholz was 22/23 years old (the 2007 season), he split his season between AA Portland and AAA Pawtucket (with a quick stop in Boston to throw a no-hitter). His 2007 season? About two-thirds of it spent at AA (86.2 IP, 116/22 K/BB ratio, 55 hits allowed, 1.77 ERA), one third at AAA (38.2 IP, 55/13 K/BB ratio, 32 hits allowed, 3.96 ERA).

This year, Bowden is spending the entire season at AAA (93.1 IP, 64/35 K/BB ratio, 74 hits allowed, 3.09 ERA). If you look at his entire previous track record in the minors, it is awfully impressive, and he has always been significantly younger than most others pitching at his level. Pre-2009, he has struck out about a batter an inning, with an even better K/BB ratio than Buchholz.

I am not saying that either Buchholz or Bowden are guaranteed to do squat in the majors, thouogh they are both attractive prospects. Everybody talks about these two pitchers like there are miles of difference between their major-league outlook, and maybe that will end up being true. However, I'm just asking with some healthy skepticism: When Bowden has generally been very good at the same minor-league levels as Buchholz, but has been two years younger (and he's only 22 right now!), doesn't that suggest Bowden is a pretty attractive propsect for the Red Sox or others?

I mean, if he were doing this for a lot of other MLB teams, wouldn't he probably be up by now?

Is he a significantly better or worse propsect than, say, Kyle Drabek? Drabek is 21 years old, in AA, pitching very well...but not any better than Bowden, who is only year older, and doing it at AAA. Everybody is talking about Drabek like he's untouchable, but Bowden is a B-level prospect? What am I missing? Do people think Bowden's stuff is AAAA quality, good enough to fool minor-leaguers, but not major-leaguers?
   184. 1k5v3L Posted: July 30, 2009 at 05:37 PM (#3273925)
Not having seen Drabek or Bowden in person, I'd imagine the big difference is in their stuff and projectability.
   185. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: July 30, 2009 at 05:52 PM (#3273957)
I think the Red Sox have always overvalued their prospects, just that now their prospect are better.

It's hard though, I think the fans, and media coverage feed into Sox and Yankees prospect hype.
   186. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: July 30, 2009 at 06:11 PM (#3273996)
17th pick must be right, the scouts must see the step back in Ks and BBs as a sign of something that will not translate to MLB success. Because before 2009, the K/IP and the K/BB ratios were extremely good, even without accounting for the fact that he was 21 and pitching in AAA by the end of 2008 with good numbers. My opinion, only having seen him a pitch a couple of times: he's a little bit like the good-looking girl whose biggest problem with the boys is that her best friend is crazy-hot. To me, Bowden looks like a very inexpensive back-end of the rotation starter with pretty good upside, given his age. Right now, that's looking better than Smoltz or Penny...
   187. 1k5v3L Posted: July 30, 2009 at 06:21 PM (#3274023)
I've read scouting reports where Drabek was given "top of the rotation starter" ceiling. I haven't seen that written that about Bowden.
   188. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 30, 2009 at 06:28 PM (#3274049)
Maybe the Red Sox should be in sell-mode. Trade Penny, Saito, and Delcarmen for as much value as you can receive.
   189. OCD SS Posted: July 30, 2009 at 06:29 PM (#3274051)
I say we drag the juke box to the alley and shoot it in the head.


So you're saying we should name the juke box "Mike Lowell."
   190. Dan Posted: July 30, 2009 at 07:26 PM (#3274229)
Getting beaten by Rajai Davis 3 times in 3 days is pretty impressive.
   191. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 30, 2009 at 07:26 PM (#3274231)
It's hard though, I think the fans, and media coverage feed into Sox and Yankees prospect hype.


Well, if you count Pedroia, Hanley, Lester, Joba and Cano as recent prospects, their farm systems do look pretty good. That's 2 MVPs and some likely All-Stars in there.
   192. Joel W Posted: July 30, 2009 at 07:31 PM (#3274254)
When even Jon Lester has a bad day, it's time to resurrect the optimist handle. I'm hoping they are good during my two weeks away.
   193. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: July 30, 2009 at 07:45 PM (#3274307)
Maybe the reason people hype up the Red Sox prospects is because a lot of them end up being useful-to-excellent players. I mean, we talk about the guys on the current roster who came through their system, but there are a bunch running around other teams who have done well. Hanley Ramirez is obvious, but Freddie Sanchez has been a very useful player for a while now. Kelly Shoppach was part of the Coco Crisp deal, Matt Murton in the Nomar trade, David Murphy in the Gagne trade, Cla Meredith in the Mirabelli deal (!)...a lot of teams, especially those who draft low in rounds, aren't even getting major-league depth in the draft.
   194. Joel W Posted: July 30, 2009 at 07:49 PM (#3274324)
Maybe Philly can bless us with his draft study database wisdom: Have the Sox created more WAR through their draft picks than most teams over the past 5 years?
   195. Marcel Posted: July 30, 2009 at 08:17 PM (#3274415)
I've read scouting reports where Drabek was given "top of the rotation starter" ceiling. I haven't seen that written that about Bowden.


I can't speak to Drabek's stuff, but Bowden's isn't impressive at all. Fringe-average fastball with a couple solid average off-speed pitches. Not unlike Arroyo's repertoire, only with better control and command. He could be a solid #3 in the NL, but he would probably have a hard time pitching in the AL east.
   196. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: July 30, 2009 at 08:46 PM (#3274507)
Maybe the reason people hype up the Red Sox prospects is because a lot of them end up being useful-to-excellent players. I mean, we talk about the guys on the current roster who came through their system, but there are a bunch running around other teams who have done well. Hanley Ramirez is obvious, but Freddie Sanchez has been a very useful player for a while now. Kelly Shoppach was part of the Coco Crisp deal, Matt Murton in the Nomar trade, David Murphy in the Gagne trade, Cla Meredith in the Mirabelli deal (!)...a lot of teams, especially those who draft low in rounds, aren't even getting major-league depth in the draft.


All that says to me is what we already knew -- that the Red Sox front office has traded away a ton of good young talent. Whether those players would have all become just as successful if they'd stayed in Boston is hard to say, but if I were a Red Sox fan, I'd be scared to death of Theo making a "prospect(s)-for-veteran(s)" deal. Especially since Theo and Co. have done such a great job in developing the young talent that they DO keep (Lester, Papelbon, Pedroia is a great core).
   197. Joel W Posted: July 30, 2009 at 08:55 PM (#3274538)
Joel w changes handle, red sox go on 7-1 run. Coincedence? I think not.

Still remind me why we are taking bard out for papelbon?
   198. Darren Posted: July 31, 2009 at 04:09 AM (#3275179)
Because 3-run saves are low lev!
   199. OCD SS Posted: July 31, 2009 at 11:38 AM (#3275245)
Would anyone else here be a little let down if the Sox's big move is VMart for Buchholz?
   200. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 31, 2009 at 12:07 PM (#3275252)

Would anyone else here be a little let down if the Sox's big move is VMart for Buchholz?


That move IMO is bad because VMart can't stay at catcher.
Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7578 seconds
41 querie(s) executed