Poll: Which Red Sox "kids" are The Untouchables?

please limit your untouchables choices in poll to 3-discuss in thread

  • Ball

    Votes: 7 3.0%
  • Barnes

    Votes: 10 4.3%
  • Betts

    Votes: 75 32.6%
  • Bogaerts

    Votes: 200 87.0%
  • JBJ

    Votes: 45 19.6%
  • Cecchini

    Votes: 6 2.6%
  • Holt

    Votes: 9 3.9%
  • Marrero

    Votes: 11 4.8%
  • Middlebrooks

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Owens

    Votes: 92 40.0%
  • Ranaudo

    Votes: 8 3.5%
  • RDLR

    Votes: 30 13.0%
  • Swihart

    Votes: 133 57.8%
  • Vazquez

    Votes: 24 10.4%
  • Webster

    Votes: 4 1.7%
  • Workman

    Votes: 11 4.8%
  • Other-specify

    Votes: 6 2.6%
  • don't make the trade

    Votes: 14 6.1%

  • Total voters
    230

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Rudy Pemberton said:
I'm dismissing JBJ as a leadoff guy because he strikes out way too much, is terrible with nobody on base (I think he completely changes his approach to be way too tentative), and he's not a good base stealer. i think he should remain in the bottom third of the order.
 
Being terrible with nobody on base is indeed a bad thing for a leadoff hitter--assuming this is a real trend and not a small-sample anomaly, which I think is very much in doubt.
 
Can you explain to me why the other two traits disqualify someone as a leadoff hitter? I would expect that making a high percentage of your outs via strikeout is, if anything, a better trait for a hitter who comes up more often with no one on base (this is a separate question from the impact of the K rate on his OBP; low OBP = bad leadoff hitter, of course).
 
And I thought the current CW was that base stealers are best in the 5-to-7 spots where they will be followed by weak hitters who are unlikely to plate a guy from first.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
SoxLegacy said:
I know he's not a "kid" so feel free to split this out if needed, but does anyone see the possibility of the Sox moving Buchholz as part of a package? I only ask this because it seems to me that he's (hopefully) replaceable by RDLR or one of the other AAA pitchers, is fairly young and has a manageable salary. When he's on, he's lights out, but it seems to me that he's always one pitch away from another long DL stint (which I know brings his value down). I just don't believe that the Sox can rely on Buchholz to be a steady part of their rotation. He's a good pitcher, but whenever it's his turn in the rotation, I always wonder which Clay shows up.
I don't see much of a point, to be honest. If good Clay shows up in a given year, he's going to be underpaid and unlikely to be moved. If bad Clay shows up....well, I doubt teams are going to give anything of value. If you can get someone to overpay for him, sure, you move him but I'd say the same thing about nearly every player. 
 
EDIT: Also, every other team knows exactly what you originally posted and that makes gauging his trade value incredibly hard. 
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
TheoShmeo said:
I'm a little surprised that Brock Holt hasn't gotten more love.  I suppose it's a function of there being other brighter prospects, at least in theory, and the belief that midnight might yet strike on Brockerella.
 
Maybe this is exactly the right time to sell high on Holt but at the same time, if one of the Sox home grown kids had produced in AAA the way Holt has produced for the Sox this season, I think there would be a tremendous amount of excitement around him and that many folks would have him in their top three. 
Brock Holt's ML production so far is about what many of us were hoping to see from Cecchini in AAA.  Even if he had done that I don't think many of us would put him in the top 3 over Betts, Swihart, and Owens.  Hell, if he had that kind of season all year in AAA and Marrero had the season he's had so far I'd have a real hard time putting a 3B who needs to improve defensively and has a .830 OPS higher on my list than a kid with an ML ready glove at SS and something on the order of a .750 OPS in a half season of AAA (what I'd consider the ideal end of 2014 line for Marerro in AAA).
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
The X Man Cometh said:
JBJ over 413 PA has managed a .299 on-base clip in the bigs. Sure, he could (and hopefully will) improve. But to say someone "can't see at all" because they don't anticipate a guy to undergo a complete transformation from what they have proven to date? Holy hostility batman.
I don't mean any hostility at all, I just don't understand how you can think the first four hundred plate appearances of his major league career constitute "what they have proven to date" when he has over a thousand minor league plate appearances. It's particularly baffling considering you went and looked at his minor league steal numbers, presumably because you didn't think his six successful steals were enough of a sample size. But somehow the first two thirds of a season's played appearances are enough to override his entire history as a ballplayer.

Oh and by the way, he has already improved. If you'd care to check his splits good see he has an OBP of over .350 for the last 28 days. Sure it's a small sample but when you consider that it's right in line with what was expected of him based on his entire career, well, there's good reason to believe is real.
 

SoxLegacy

New Member
Oct 30, 2008
629
Maryland
Thanks, MM44. I was just sort of thinking out loud in regards to Buchholz. Agree that all the other teams see the same things we see. All in all, I'd like to see him remain with the Sox, but could do with a lot less of "bad Clay".
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
SoxLegacy said:
Thanks, MM44. I was just sort of thinking out loud in regards to Buchholz. Agree that all the other teams see the same things we see. All in all, I'd like to see him remain with the Sox, but could do with a lot less of "bad Clay".
God, I think we all could.  :nsmith:
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
This is reasonable, but with two asterisks:
 
1) JBJ was a better hitter in the minors than Crisp. Not hugely, but non-trivially, particularly in the power department.
 
2) Crisp has been a 30-WAR player in the majors, and is still going strong at 34. That's a real good player. You pop champagne corks if a prospect has that career. Not the expensive stuff, but not Taylor either. :) Granted, you said that was JBJ's ceiling--which I think is slightly pessimistic, but not that far off--but still, depending on how good a bet one thinks JBJ is to reach that semi-ceiling, that might make him untouchable.
 
Yeah, ceiling may have been a little low. Maybe "optimistic output" would be better. His ceiling is probably a little higher than what Coco has been.
 
FWIW, Coco has a career 100 OPS+ exactly. I think we'd all sign up for that in a heartbeat from JBJ.
 

tomdeplonty

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 23, 2013
585
I voted for Swihart, X, and RDLR. The first two for the same reasons many have already given, RDLR because his potential (very high) ceiling is intriguing, and if he doesn't get there his floor is still probably completely tradable/otherwise useful later.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
I voted JBJ,Betts,Bogaerts, but I wouldn't trade half the guys on the list.

I'd almost say "don't make the trade", but this is Ruben Amaro Jr. here. I'd say most of these guys are untouchable because you either might be able to get away with less, or would have to trade the farm and therefore make a bad trade.

Hamels is owed 22.5M through 2018, and he'd cost you prospects. I'd rather just pay Lester the 25M a season through 2020 and use the prospects on a different position of need.
 
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,452
Haiku
I voted Bogaerts, Swihart and Bradley, but I hope that Owens proves me wrong and Christian converts me.
 
As for Hamels, meh. If the Red Sox are going to spring a big deal for a new starters, Hamels is not the one to aim for. Keep the prospects and blow the big stash on Scherzer.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Can I repurpose this thread?
 
It sounds like the Phillies are more interested in moving Cliff Lee than Hamels anyway. If Lee shows that he's healthy, does the equation change? 
 
His contract calls for $25 million next season with a $27.5 million team option ($12.5 on the buyout) for 2016 that becomes guaranteed if he: a) pitches 200 innings in 2015 b) pitches 400 innings in 2014 and 2015 c) must not finish 2015 on disabled list. 
 
Personally, I'd be willing to give up less for Lee than Hamels with the concession that we'd take on all of his salary. 
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
If the assumption is that Lee replaces Lester, who has been traded or will accept a FA bid from another team, if I correctly understood his contract obligation. Lee could be a year 1-rental for $37.5MM, or two years for $52.5MM.  (more reasonable).
 
Depending upon what if any kind of salary relief is provided by the Philles, assuming none, I agree he would be worth less in prospects than Hamels.