163 replies to this topic

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Edited by diehard24, 13 November 2008 - 01:49 PM.

[OCD SS]

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:

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.

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]

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.

Edited by OCD SS, 13 November 2008 - 07:10 PM.

[Rough Carrigan]

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]

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]

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(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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

[Eric Van]

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.

Some Bill James projections from the Handbook, with a park-adjusted Runs Above Average MLB C:

Four Catchers

Name	OBP	SA	RAA
Varitek, Jason	.334	.392	4
Brown, Dusty	.325	.406	4
Ross, David	.317	.412	3
Laird, Gerald	.318	.396	1

[mabrowndog]

Nice to see those projections validate my point. If a team decides it wants to replace Varitek with a Laird-type catcher, why would you pay a dear price for the cow (Laird) when you've already got milk in the fridge that's cheap (Ross) or free (Brown)?

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

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

There's a part of me that's embarrassed for not catching it myself after posting it. But there's a much bigger part of me that's greatly amused and glad I didn't.

[E5 Yaz]

Evan Grant, you are an idiot.

I used to work with Evan Grant. I wouldn't call him an idiot; but I would say that Evan needs the Jerry Rice of copy editors to catch every spelling and grammar mistake he throws into a story.

As to the Rangers, Buchholz for Teagarden is the type of possibility that seems to need both sides adding a complementary piece. maybe a minor league pitcher from the Rangers and a minor league outfielder from the Red Sox

Edited by E5 Yaz, 15 November 2008 - 05:34 PM.

[amarshal2]

As to the Rangers, Buchholz for Teagarden is the type of possibility that seems to need both sides adding a complementary piece. maybe a minor league pitcher from the Rangers and a minor league outfielder from the Red Sox

I don't get it. Why would both sides need to add a piece? I realize that's how it usual works when one side needs to add a piece but why do both sides NEED to add a piece. From my perspective, the Rangers would need to be the ones to add a piece to that deal.

[bd11]

I don't get it. Why would both sides need to add a piece? I realize that's how it usual works when one side needs to add a piece but why do both sides NEED to add a piece. From my perspective, the Rangers would need to be the ones to add a piece to that deal.

I see your point about Texas needing to add a player, but this is offseason 08 versus offseason 07 and Buchholz is likely trading for .50 on the dollar. That's why I think it makes no sense for the FO to deal him.

[E5 Yaz]

I don't get it. Why would both sides need to add a piece? I realize that's how it usual works when one side needs to add a piece but why do both sides NEED to add a piece. From my perspective, the Rangers would need to be the ones to add a piece to that deal.

The Rangers add another piece as a leveler for the Sox, in case Buchholz regains his value. The Sox add a piece as a leveler in case he doesn't. On the other hand, Buchholz-Saltalamacchia is a deal I would do straight up ... since each is a top-tier prospect with a few warts showing.

[OCD SS]

There's still room on the Miguel Montero bandwagon..

Texas has needs as well, so I think that tidbit just means that negotiations are proceeding at a reasonable pace. I wouldn't give up 2 of Masterson/Hagadone/Bowden for Salty. But I think the teams are getting close to a framework where one of those 3 goes along with some lower pitching prospects.

Right now I'm curious about what Texas could send along to balance out a deal for Buchholz...

[ookami7m]

I hope I'm wrong on Montero whether he stays in AZ or is in Boston next year, but I don't think he's going to be nearly as good as Salty, Teagarden or the other options we've thrown around. I've seen him in person enough times to see the defensive lapses that would drive half of this board insane.

[yep]

Buying catching means buying high right now. I don't think there's any way around that.

Varitek is an emergent disaster, and I say that speaking as someone whose inner child desperately wants him to retire with the Sox.

The 3-year-27-million-dollar question is whether there is another team out there who is willing to sign our very own Captain Defensive Intangibles at Boras rates, and if so, whether Varitek would snub the hometown discount for the respectful offer. I don't know, but my guess is yes and yes. Which will put the Red Sox to a decision, hopefully sooner than later if it happens. The magical escape pod of a hybrid player/coach position without roster ramifications does not seem to exist, as far as I can tell.

[topic="http://sports.yahoo....lgns"]According to Edes (for example)[/topic], there are some bright spots on the catching horizon. But they are a long way off and the long, dark road of 672 OPS and falling looms between.

Catchers are the new yachts. Buying one that you're not going to regret in a few years is unlikely. But the Red Sox need a catcher, and everything hinges on Varitek. If they can get him to just a single guaranteed year (more opium, please), then I'll be drunk with ecstasy and will run naked into the street to flip over my neighbor's car. Two years would be difficult to swallow, but would frankly be a coup in this market. Even still, I'd be thinking that Buchholz for Saltalamacchia is probably close to a wash in terms of overall wins in the next two seasons, compared to keeping 'Tek on the short roster. But a lot of it also depends on the pitching market, and on what kinds of projections we use.

The thing with guys like Kottras is that you don't know. This sounds like a stupidly obvious observation when discussing prospects, but it becomes acutely relevant when the discussion is about whether to give up on a Clay Buchholz in the present reality. To use a poker analogy, sticking with Varitek and Kottras is drawing to a gutshot straight, while giving up a pitching prospect right now is drawing to four suited connectors. The Red Sox have a lot more ways to build a winning rotation through money and development than they have to plug the breath-bubbling chest wound at catcher. And the Red Sox as currently constructed are well-situated to capitalize on emergent young talent and great financial resources. There is no reason to go into a rebuilding/testing-our-luck phase. If you're going to mortgage the farm, this is as good a time as any to do it.

I apologize for contributing to the not-talking-about-the-Texas-catchers arc of this thread, and also for not offering much in the way of hard insights or conclusions, but some of the valuations here seem a little myopic. The question is not whether, say Saltalamcchia's performance above league average will exceed Buchholz's performance above league average, but whether catcher X's value above Varitek will exceed Pitcher Y's value above whoever ends up being the fifth starter in the real-world Red Sox of '09 and beyond. Replacability matters as much as intrinsic value when assessing these things. I'm not offering conclusions here, just trying to frame the debate.

[diehard24]

Source: http://hotstove.mlbl...a_third_ba.html

Is there a fit here with Lowell? Obviously, if they find the asking prices for Casey (3-year deal, not sure of $) and Crede prohibitive, then you can rest assured they'll feel the same way about Lowell. To Jon Daniels' credit, the team doesn't have many bad contracts. Really, the only "bad" contract they have is Kevin Millwood and I just can't see them moving him.

Just thinking out loud here.

Seems odd that they picked up Blalock for $6.2 just to DH if they find the price for Blake and Crede prohibitive. I've seen continual rumors of them wanting to resign Bradley, too.

Of course, per usual, we're left wondering how much of that came from an actual source and what type of source that might be, or if this was just the writer's humble opinion.

[SoxFanSince57]

Everything I have read about the Rangers and Bradley seems to indicate that he will ultimately leave. He wants a long-term deal and the Rangers are concerned about his ability to suit up everyday. All indications I have read is that Blalock's option was picked up so that he could be their DH and that Bradley would find a better deal elsewhere.

General manager Jon Daniels spoke with Bradley's agents at the General Managers Meetings last week in California. The Rangers have some interest in re-signing Bradley...but they also recognize that he is coming off an outstanding season and has a right to test the free-agent market. Bradley made it clear at the end of the season that he is looking for a long-term contract while the Rangers have some concerns about the physical issues that he has had to deal with in his career. Bradley played in 126 games for the Rangers in 2008, only the second most in his nine-year career.

Bradley also spent most of the season at DH while trying to get back to full strength after major knee surgery at the end of the 2007 season. Hank Blalock is expected to assume most of the DH duties in 2009 after the Rangers picked up his $6.2 million option last week.

"[They]and I agreed to stay in touch, but they're going to see what's out there and we're going to prepare for the possibility that Milton will get a better deal out there than we can offer," Daniels said. "We loved what he delivered for us this year, and I'm open to having him back -- seemed to be a good fit on both sides. If it happens, it'll likely be later in the winter, and will be dependent on what else we've done and the feedback Milton's gotten elsewhere."

http://texas.rangers.......sp&c_id=tex

I have thought for awhile (wishful thinking may be closer to the point) that Lowell + pitcher would get one of Texas' younger catchers or Lowell + mlb prospect would yield Laird.

EDIT: If one assumes that the Rangers want Davis to play 1B, then I would suspect they would be more inclined to trade either Salty or Ramirez than Teagarden. As others have posted many think that Salty/Ramirez project as 1B/DH types while Teagarden's catching skills would keep him behind the plate. My guess is that Texas will move Salty, keep Ramirez in AAA and go with Teagarden/Laird to start the season and then move Laird before the trading deadline. (I still love Max' hitting potential)

Edited by SoxFanSince57, 21 November 2008 - 10:43 PM.

[wyatt55]

Can someone cite the sources or give up the goods that reference Max Ramirez as a 1B/DH type?

Two thoughts:
1. I've seen him play before (AA - Frisco) and he threw out two would be basestealers at second. One of the throws I was too far away to notice. The other I was by the third base dugout and his throw to second was an absolute LASER. So what part of his D stinks?

2. Don't we want someone who can hit like a 1B/DH playing catcher? Use Cash or other as the Defensive guy occasionally and late innings-wise.

Thanks.

As an aside, I could see the Rangers being interested in Lowell as they're a young team with very little vocal leadership. Mike Young's a quiet guy and doesn't run the clubhouse although I believe the players would follow him. My Rangers guy actually said Ian Kinsler has been emerging as a clubhouse leader early last year thru now. Lowell would be a fit but with the Rangers trying to go with the youth thing, instead of him I see them making due with Blalock playing some 1B with Davis at 3rd and give Metcalf every opportunity to win the spot in ST (with Davis being the reg 1B).

[OCD SS]

Wyatt: I think most of us are going on the traditional reports. From Sickels: "... Yet he's been traded twice in two years. What gives? His glove. It's bad. He has a strong arm, but doesn't throw out runners well, doesn't call a good game, and may not be mobile enough to play 1B." BA was a lot more circumspect, but he was a mid-20's prospect so he didn't get a real long write up.

I think it's really that no one has every really come across anyone who thinks he'll be able to catch at the ML level.

[Trautwein's Degree]

From The Dallas Morning News:

Jarrod Saltalamacchia has played in three games for Leones del Escogido in the Dominican Winter League, catching in two of them. Three have attempted to run on him and two were gunned down. This, of course, is more important than the fact that he's 4-for-10 with a dinger and a double, two walks and a pair of whiffs. Surely, Boston is watching. Link.

[maufman]

PMR (h/t to SumnerH) rates Saltalamacchia's defense as almost exactly average, but defensive metrics for catchers are always suspect.

Do scouts dislike Salty's defense because they see something I don't, or do their judgments turn on things like pitch calling that armchair analysts like me have no way to assess?

[Paul M]

I think Salty gets a bad rap because of his size--6'4" 235--as much as anything (you don't hear nearly the same amount of concern about Matt Wieters who is a better defender now but is an inch taller and 5 pounds less). The only reason Atlanta traded him was because they had Brian McCann. I'm actually kind of surprised Texas is willing to deal him, but they clearly like Teagarden more. I think the Sox would be making a real nice move by getting Saltalamacchia and he should be a starter full-time by next year and he really just needs the reps. His defense was not as big a concern a couple years ago but he's had parts of the last few years interrupted by trades, change of position, and minor injuries. He's still kind of raw and most guys take time and do not have all the refinement of a Mauer or McCann who are pretty unique.

A couple quotes from 2005 BA Top 10:

"He has good physical skills behind the plate, with his arm strength and agility standing out the most. He's more athletic than most catchers."

"The Future: With his performance at low Class A Rome, Saltalamacchia quieted skeptics who wondered if he'd be able to stay behind the plate."

From 2006 (the year of his big break-out)

"He has put questions about his ability to remain behind the plate to rest. His footwork, throwing mechanics and game-calling ability all made tremendous strides in 2005."

Even if he's average defensively, he could be a middle of the order threat as a LH bat from the catcher position and he's not yet 24. Just two years ago he was the best catching prospect in baseball and the primary reason Atlanta got Mark Texeira. I see this as a rare chance to get a core player in his pre-arb years. I understand the Sox are exploring all options but he's #1 imo.

[PedroSpecialK]

In today's game, Saltalamacchia went 2-2 with 2 homers and 4 walks. Nice day at the office.
per Rotoworld

edit: Now 6-12 with 3 homers, a double, 6 walks and 2 K's.

Edited by PedroSpecialK, 22 November 2008 - 04:35 PM.

[OCD SS]

Cross posting from the Tazawa thread, to the appropriate topic:

You are absolutely wrong here. There is no way any asset like Bowden or Salty is going to be traded before Winter Meetings. Someone like Coco who generated limited interest, sure. However you never know when you play two groups against each other or you get an unexpected bid. Winter Meetings is the best place to do this.

I disagree, most GMs are continually talking, and they have a good idea of what is going on around the league. In this case, both teams have been talking for quite awhile to address specific areas of need. Texas asked for either Buchholz or 2 of Masterson/ Hagadone/ Bowden. If the Sox had said "yes", do you think that Texas would've held back to wait for the winter meetings? Likewise, if Bowden + met Texas's criteria to deal Salty (ie, if Texas were that high on Bowden) then they would make the deal. Since the Sox would make that trade in a heartbeat (depending on the "+", see the refered to post) I think it's logical to assume that Bowden is not enough for the Rangers.

To answer Corsi's question, I don't think that if the Sox sign Tazawa it will herald a trade since I don't see Tazawa having an immeadiate impact on the big league club.

[TomRicardo]

Do you see Bowden having an immediate impact on the big league club?

A team like Texas, yes.

[OCD SS]

Do you see Bowden having an immediate impact on the big league club?

Bowden will at least be able to make spot starts riding the Pawtucket shuttle. I think Tazawa is going to need a season or two in the minors. His competition has been pretty weak, and he's going to need to adjust to the new ball, among other things. Despite the age difference, I think Bowden is ahead of him.

But I also don't think it matters. The Sox don't need to count on Bowden and could find another version of Colon to fill that role. I don't think the Sox were holding up on a deal for Salty because they needed to fill in a minor league pitcher.

Edited by OCD SS, 23 November 2008 - 09:30 PM.

[TomRicardo]

I disagree, most GMs are continually talking, and they have a good idea of what is going on around the league. In this case, both teams have been talking for quite awhile to address specific areas of need. Texas asked for either Buchholz or 2 of Masterson/ Hagadone/ Bowden. If the Sox had said "yes", do you think that Texas would've held back to wait for the winter meetings? Likewise, if Bowden + met Texas's criteria to deal Salty (ie, if Texas were that high on Bowden) then they would make the deal. Since the Sox would make that trade in a heartbeat (depending on the "+", see the refered to post) I think it's logical to assume that Bowden is not enough for the Rangers.

To answer Corsi's question, I don't think that if the Sox sign Tazawa it will herald a trade since I don't see Tazawa having an immeadiate impact on the big league club.

But the Red Sox are not offering Buchholz and two others and Texas is not offering Teagarden for Bowden. They are both holding out hoping the other blink. I think Bowden and Salty would probably work out for both sides but isn't ideal. Why not wait to Winter Meetings and see if you find more leverage for your position?

There is absolutely no reason for either team to make the trade now.

I do agree Tazawa has very little to do with this situation.

[kazuneko]

Source: http://hotstove.mlbl...a_third_ba.html

Is there a fit here with Lowell? Obviously, if they find the asking prices for Casey (3-year deal, not sure of $) and Crede prohibitive, then you can rest assured they'll feel the same way about Lowell.

You'd think that if this would help the Sox get a cost-controlled young catcher there should be nothing preventing the Sox from subsidizing Lowell's deal.

Edited by kazuneko, 24 November 2008 - 04:14 AM.

[OCD SS]

But the Red Sox are not offering Buchholz and two others and Texas is not offering Teagarden for Bowden. They are both holding out hoping the other blink. I think Bowden and Salty would probably work out for both sides but isn't ideal. Why not wait to Winter Meetings and see if you find more leverage for your position?

There is absolutely no reason for either team to make the trade now.

What do the winter meetings have to do with anything? Any GM who is interested probably knows what's going on, and would make a telephone call if they were going to get in on it. The Winter meetings are convenient, but hardly the only time any deals get made and a team would be foolish to not make a deal hoping for leverage to suddenly appear from Dec 8-11th.

While there have been some conflicting reports about which Catcher the Sox prefer, it's pretty clear that Texas prefers Teagarden. I don't think the Sox are in a "waiting to blink" position. They're trying to slowly wear Texas down to accepting their offer; if the deal you suggest was on the table, I'm pretty sure the Sox would make it.

[LondonSox]

Texas are in on Tazawa as well. Is there anything (other than the obvious class and reputation issues) that would stop the sox signing Tazawa and including him in a package to Texas?
If he were drafted he couldn't be traded for a year but I'm not clear on the rules for international free agents