[Corsi Combover]

I figure we're gonna need a thread for these guys eventually. Might as well crank it up now.

Quote

The Rangers have catchers to trade. The Red Sox have young pitching. There seems to be a match but nothing is brewing.

The Rangers have made it clear they covet Clay Buchholz. Right now the Red Sox are not inclined to move him. They still have to decide what is going to happen with Jason Varitek. If the re-sign Varitek, they certainly aren't going to trade Buchholz for a catcher.

The Red Sox also have Justin Masterson and Michael Bowden. But some view Masterson more as a reliever than the starter that the Rangers desire. Bowden is nice prospect but may not be the impact pitcher the Rangers are looking for right now. Buchholz is the guy but there is no movement there.

Source: http://hotstove.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/...talk_but_n.html

This post has been edited by Corsi Combover: 23 January 2009 - 12:33 AM

[flymrfreakjar]

I'm happy to hear that the Sox aren't willing to part with Buchholz just yet, I've been a little surprised at how many on the board are so down on him. I've seen several posts holding Masterson as the more valuable prospect and I just don't see it yet. If you have to trade him to get an essential piece, then you do what you have to do, but he's still the Sox's top young pitcher (not named Jon Lester) in my eyes.

[bowiac]

flymrfreakjar, on Nov 13 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

I'm happy to hear that the Sox aren't willing to part with Buchholz just yet, I've been a little surprised at how many on the board are so down on him. I've seen several posts holding Masterson as the more valuable prospect and I just don't see it yet. If you have to trade him to get an essential piece, then you do what you have to do, but he's still the Sox's top young pitcher (not named Jon Lester) in my eyes.

I agree the preference for Masterson over Buchholz is confusing, but a lot of the willingness to deal Clay has more to do with desperation to not run Varitek out there again next year.

Buchholz does remain the best pitching prospect the Red Sox have however.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

bowiac, on Nov 13 2008, 04:41 AM, said:

I agree the preference for Masterson over Buchholz is confusing, but a lot of the willingness to deal Clay has more to do with desperation to not run Varitek out there again next year.

Buchholz does remain the best pitching prospect the Red Sox have however.

This may be true, but Buchholz is coming off of one of the most eye-searingly awful seasons by a Sox pitcher in recent memory, and followed that up by a stint in the AFL where he got decidedly mixed results (started out well and then pitched poorly in his last 3 starts). And yet it's very possible that Buchholz' value may never be higher than it is now, despite his annus horribilis, because he may well not regain the form that made him the Sox' top pitching prospect.

If the Rangers want Buchholz in exchange for one of their young catchers I'd make the deal in a heartbeat. I am skeptical at Buchholz' ability to contribute to the Sox in 2009; their need for a good young catcher is far more pressing than waiting for Buchholz to get his act together, which may take several years if at all.

[OCD SS]

Smiling Joe Hesketh, on Nov 13 2008, 08:45 AM, said:

This may be true, but Buchholz is coming off of one of the most eye-searingly awful seasons by a Sox pitcher in recent memory...

I think you may need to follow this up with a caveat about "a starting pitcher with extremely high expectations", becasue as bad as Buchholz was, there is no way he was as bad as Jason Johnson or Gagne.

With regards to dealing Buchholz, I think the demand for him is high enough that if he's as expendable as you make him out to be, you'd still have to get more for him than either Teagarden or Salty.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Buchholz is still a promosing prospect, but the Sox are theoretically able to move him because they have depth at the position and money to spend to sign a FA pitcher if they so choose. Willingness to deal him doesn't necessarily equate with a lack of respect to him or patience for his development. I think the Sox should move him for one of the Texas catchers because they need a catcher, and can afford to move him.

[Manny's Hammies]

So when does "The Texas Catchers" thread start discussing the Texas catchers?

[MattCrashDavis]

I watched Taylor Teagarden play in the College World Series and was generally impressed with his defense. I don't remember enough about his approach or numbers to say, but he hit right in the middle of a very good Texas lineup. It seems like he has progressed as hoped since then, so he's someone I would look to trade for, no question.

I have never gotten over my notion that Jarrod Saltalamacchia is one of those guys who ends up playing catcher as a young teenager because they can't play anywhere else. Further, I think he was one of those dudes who aged early, and could buy beer with no ID when they were 15. Unscioentific but I don't think those type of guys age well, as they reach a level of competition they can't dominate based on sheer size and strength. He hits but has sort of a long swing. I would be nervous about staking my future on a guy who might be a DH (don't need one) and might end up looking like 2007-2008 Richie Sexson at the plate. I could be wrong and he could turn out to be Mike Piazza, but I would definitely prefer Teagarden over him.

Gerald Laird is a known quantity. There is some value to that, esp. if it means you don't have to part with a prospect you really like. But he's really not that good. He's a backup catcher for a team with the Red Sox's budget, and a middling starter on a bad team. His career OPS+ is 79. That's not good, even at catcher.

I know nothing about Max Ramirez except that people seem to like him.

[diehard24]

Rudy Pemberton, on Nov 13 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

Buchholz is still a promosing prospect, but the Sox are theoretically able to move him because they have depth at the position and money to spend to sign a FA pitcher if they so choose. Willingness to deal him doesn't necessarily equate with a lack of respect to him or patience for his development. I think the Sox should move him for one of the Texas catchers because they need a catcher, and can afford to move him.

Buchholz is and was more than the Sox best pitching prospect; coming into last season, he was the best pitching prospect in all of baseball. Let's not forget that.

Yes, the Sox have depth at the position, but trading Buchholz should be viewed at how likely you think he is to reach his potential, because his potential is elite level. Higher than Lester, higher than anyone on the Sox staff.

But please notice the use of the word potential. Again, this comes down to how probable or possible it is that he reach his potential. If the Sox think that probability is high, you don't trade him unless you view the player(s) coming back in the same light. I do think that both Teagarden and Salty can be viewed that way, but also think that we need to keep Buchholz's potential in perspective.

edit: grammar

This post has been edited by diehard24: 13 November 2008 - 01:49 PM

[OCD SS]

MattCrashDavis, on Nov 13 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

I know nothing about Max Ramirez except that people seem to like him.

The basic line on Max Ramirez is that he's defiantly a 1B/DH, and is not an option for the Sox.

[AZBlue]

Sometimes patience with a talented young pitcher with control issues can bear fruit. The fellow whose first six years' stats appear below is Sandy Koufax. There are dozens of less dramatic, but meaningful, examples of ace pitchers who struggled in their first 1-4 years. I'm not suggesting that Buchholz = Koufax, but Buchholz has three plus pitches despite his inexperience on the mound. Let him develop.

GS W L PCT ERA IP H BB SO
5 2 2 .500 3.02 41.2 183 14 28 30
10 2 4 .333 4.91 58.2 32 29 30
13 5 4 .556 3.88 104.1 83 51 122
26 11 11 .500 4.48 158.2 132 105 131
23 8 6 .571 4.05 153.1 136 92 173
26 8 13 .381 3.91 175.0 133 100 197

[diehard24]

From Kevin Goldstein's chat yesterday, FWIW:

Quote

newsense (DC): Would any of the Rangers' catchers be worth the Red Sox trading Buchholz or Masterson? If not, do the Rangers have anything that could even out the deal?

Kevin Goldstein: The Rangers have one of, if not THE best system in baseball, so they have enough to even out pretty much any deal you can think of. I'd be willing to part with Masterson if I was Texas, but I wouldn't sell low on Buchholz.

edit: cute, guys.

This post has been edited by diehard24: 13 November 2008 - 05:51 PM

[PedroSpecialK]

I don't know about trading so much of our potential assets on the mound for a catcher when we could acquire Laird from the Rangers much more easily than someone like Teagarden or Saltalamacchia. Laird made $1.6m this past year and is going to be much more expensive for the Rangers to keep around (I'd guess he doubles his salary to about $3.2-3.5m) than it would be to develop Saltalamacchia and Teagarden. I'd love to have either of those two, obviously, but if the sticking point is Buchholz, I'd rather trade Che-Hsuan Lin or Dan Bard along with someone like Delcarmen than deal Buchholz.

[OCD SS]

PedroSpecialK, on Nov 13 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

I don't know about trading so much of our potential assets on the mound for a catcher when we could acquire Laird from the Rangers much more easily than someone like Teagarden or Saltalamacchia.

This would be incredibly myopic on the part of the Sox FO. The Sox have no long term solution at Catcher, and this offseason there is a team with a surplus at the position who happen to be looking for the kind of talent (pitching) that the Sox have a surplus of. When deal with positions of need, exactly how often do the stars align so favorably? And your idea is to take the cheapest possible player who is at best a stop gap and stands no chance of being a long term solution?

The Sox are looking at TT or Salty because they are trying to set anchor the team behind the dish for the next 6-10 years. It would be downright foolish to not make the most of such an obvious opportunity. While that doens't mean that they should give Texas whatever they want, we shouldn't get so caught up in our own prospects that we immeadiately start shopping in the bargain bin.

This post has been edited by OCD SS: 13 November 2008 - 07:10 PM

[Rough Carrigan]

AZBlue, on Nov 13 2008, 05:28 PM, said:

Sometimes patience with a talented young pitcher with control issues can bear fruit. The fellow whose first six years' stats appear below is Sandy Koufax. There are dozens of less dramatic, but meaningful, examples of ace pitchers who struggled in their first 1-4 years. I'm not suggesting that Buchholz = Koufax, but Buchholz has three plus pitches despite his inexperience on the mound. Let him develop.

GS W L PCT ERA IP H BB SO
5 2 2 .500 3.02 41.2 183 14 28 30
10 2 4 .333 4.91 58.2 32 29 30
13 5 4 .556 3.88 104.1 83 51 122
26 11 11 .500 4.48 158.2 132 105 131
23 8 6 .571 4.05 153.1 136 92 173
26 8 13 .381 3.91 175.0 133 100 197

I agree.
Buchholz was worth more than any of the Texas catchers in trade last year and might be worth more than any of them again after the 2009 season. Trading him now has a very good chance to be selling at a low point when viewed a few years from now.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Quote

Buchholz is and was more than the Sox best pitching prospect; coming into last season, he was the best pitching prospect in all of baseball. Let's not forget that.

Well, that's up for debate (Phil Hughes?), but the year before that Homer Bailey was the best pitching prospect in baseball, right? Not making any conclusions about either pitcher at this point but the Sox can clearly afford to give up Buchholz no matter how good he is or will be, and they can also benefit from the acquisition of a young, high upside backstop. You've got to give something to get something and no matter how good Clay might be, he's somewhat more expendable for this club because of the pitching depth they've amassed.

[GreyisGone]

Rudy Pemberton, on Nov 14 2008, 09:32 AM, said:

Well, that's up for debate (Phil Hughes?), but the year before that Homer Bailey was the best pitching prospect in baseball, right? Not making any conclusions about either pitcher at this point but the Sox can clearly afford to give up Buchholz no matter how good he is or will be, and they can also benefit from the acquisition of a young, high upside backstop. You've got to give something to get something and no matter how good Clay might be, he's somewhat more expendable for this club because of the pitching depth they've amassed.

Just to work off your point, Hughes was hurt last year and is still thought very highly of. Bailey lost velocity, and a lot of people think he'll never get it back.

[diehard24]

Quote

QUOTE(Rudy Pemberton @ Nov 14 2008, 09:32 AM) *
Well, that's up for debate (Phil Hughes?), but the year before that Homer Bailey was the best pitching prospect in baseball, right? Not making any conclusions about either pitcher at this point but the Sox can clearly afford to give up Buchholz no matter how good he is or will be, and they can also benefit from the acquisition of a young, high upside backstop. You've got to give something to get something and no matter how good Clay might be, he's somewhat more expendable for this club because of the pitching depth they've amassed.

GreyisGone, on Nov 14 2008, 07:41 AM, said:

Just to work off your point, Hughes was hurt last year and is still thought very highly of. Bailey lost velocity, and a lot of people think he'll never get it back.

Wait, wait . . . are you guys saying Buchholz could get injured, or he could simply NOT reach his potential? Son of bitch!!!
Well I just hope Teagarden or Salty can turn into the next Ben Davis or Steve Lomasney.

Again, I'm not saying you don't trade him for one of these guys. I'm saying you only trade him if you think you're getting the same amount of upside in return, elite-level potential at his position. It will say something about either catcher if the Sox end up doing a straight up deal.

[mabrowndog]

From Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News, the Red Sox, Marlins and Tigers are the top trade matches for Rangers' catching talent, with Boston at the top of the pile.

Quote

There seems to be the closest thing to a foundation for a match with the Red Sox. Boston is seeking a long-term replacement for Jason Varitek and has some attractive young pitching depth. The Rangers like (i think in this order): Clay I am an Idiot, Michael Bowden, Justin Masterson. The Red Sox like (I think in this order): Taylor Teagarden, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Gerald Laird. Here's a hypothetical situation I kind of laid out earlier in the week: It wouldn't surprise me if the Rangers are asking for I am an Idiot and danging Saltalamacchia and the Red Sox are asking for Teagarden. Easy solution: Ask Boston to substitute I am an Idiot. But it's never that easy for either team. Teagarden is the catcher the Rangers most want to hold on to and I am an Idiot is the pitcher the Red Sox most want. If you get to the point of exchanging them one-for-one, it means both teams have been willing to compromise that to get something they really want, they are going to have to give up something they really don't want to give up.

.
From Evan's colleague Mike Hindman:

Quote

Boston wants Taylor Teagarden and Texas wants Clay Buchholz. Texas would like to get Buchholz -- a Nederland, Texas native -- for Jarrod Saltalamacchia or Gerald Laird. Boston would like to get Teagarden for Justin Masterson or Michael Bowden. Utlimately, Jon Daniels and Theo Epstein -- who are fairly close and who have turned to one another more than once in the past to hammer out what they thought was a mutually beneficial deal -- will settle on Jarrod Saltalmacchia or Gerald Laird for the big, Jamaican-born Justin Masterson.

From Amalie Benjamin's mailbag:

Quote

the talk of Saltalamacchia has heated up (as well as Taylor Teagarden, with Gerald Laird lagging behind because of a theory that some pitchers aren't all that keen about throwing to him).

Yikes. Gerald Laird = Paul Lo Duca? That's the first I've seen or heard of this theory.

I'm more inclined to believe Laird's 2009 salary is what puts him at the bottom of the list -- he made $1.6M last season and after improving to .276/.329/.398 he'll probably net around $3M in another arbitration year. Not that it's a prohibitive number for Boston's payroll, of course, but what type of value over replacement would they be getting for that kind of money -- especially if they give up one of their top pitching prospects to get him?

Bear in mind he's just one season removed from a .224/.278/.349 line in a career-high 120 games. No matter how you slice it, that's worse than Tek's 2008. Laird's never embraced the base on balls, and he turned 29 a couple days ago, so how much improvement could be expected in his on-base abilities? Not much, I'm afraid. And he's probably closer to his decline phase than some may want to believe.

This post has been edited by mabrowndog: 15 November 2008 - 08:50 AM

[philly sox fan]

The word filter is dumb, except when it snags quotes from newspapers.

It's pretty effin funny then. Evan Grant, you are an idiot.