66 replies to this topic

[Foulkey Reese]

Let's assume that Salty would be available straight up for Buchholz. Would you make that trade?

The Red Sox's willingness to trade right-hander Clay Buchholz for Rangers catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia does not figure to be any greater now that the team has signed free-agent right-hander John Smoltz.

After signing John Smoltz, the Red Sox aren't likely to trade right-handed reliever Clay Buchholz.

Buchholz remains an important part of the Sox's future, and the value that club officials sign to him should not change due to the addition of a 41-year-old veteran coming off major shoulder surgery.

http://msn.foxsports...cquire-pitching

I'm on the fence at the moment, but leaning towards no.

[TheRealness]

Somebody should tell him Clay is a starter.

I wouldn't do it straight up, because I have tremendous concerns about Salty's ability to stay behind the plate. If the FO feels he has the ability to be a 3-5 guy in the order, then it would increase his value as he could transition to 1B if he struggles behind the plate. However, I'm concerned he's essentially a DH in the making.

I would do it for Taylor Teagarden, but my hard-on for Taylor skews my ability to be rational. I would sacrifice my liver to an ex-GF if it would help.

[Sprowl]

The Red Sox have three pitching prospects out there. Theo recently has been trying to talk up Bowden's potential as a 2010 starter, and posed Buchholz as near untouchable. I think the implication is that Buchholz straight up should fetch the better C (who the Rangers think is Teagarden). Hence, the value of the prospects in trade looks like:

Bowden + = Salty.
Masterson = Salty.
Buchholz = Salty +.

If the Sox do trade for Saltalamacchia and let another team sign Tek for the draft picks, then the team's 2009 catching position will be filled by Salty Bard. That's positively Shakespearean.

[geoduck no quahog]

No - simply because the Red Sox will need at least 2 more starters (and Beckett's a FA) in 2010, theoretically from the group of Masterson / Buchholz / Bowden. The FA class of 2010 is underwhelming (other than Beckett) with Duchscherer, Harden, and (no thanks) Lackey (and maybe a bounce-back Escobar) the only non-option starters of high quality. Yes, if the Red Sox can outbid the Angels or Yankees for one of those guys - great.

I don't think the upside of Buchholz is worth the upside of Saltalamacchia. I want Salty but not at the expense of Buchholz. I have no idea how far away Exposito or Wagner are (or even Federowicz) but it would kill me to see a 15-game winner Buchholz pitching to Teagarden in a couple of years and have one of those young guys beating out Saltalamacchia to catch Bowden.

[Captain Fishtail]

Suppose the Red Sox had Saltalamacchia right now, and that the Rangers had Buchholz, who had come up through the Texas system. Would you want to trade Saltalamacchia for Buchholz, given the team's needs and Buchholz's performance last year? I suspect there wouldn't be much support for the idea. I realize it might seem a silly question, since it's about the same as the question asked in the poll (is it interestingly different?); but I also think it's a useful thought experiment because it helps a little to shake loose the attachment one gets to one's own prospects and relative lack of enthusiasm for the ones who come up elsewhere. On the other hand, reluctance to trade Saltalamacchia in those reversed circumstances might itself be irrational, since his only really exciting performance was over such a small number of AA at bats -- fewer that Lars Anderson has had. But this leads to the question of how to evaluate his major league numbers to date, which has already been hashed out in the Texas catchers thread.

Edited by Captain Fishtail, 09 January 2009 - 05:02 PM.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

No - simply because the Red Sox will need at least 2 more starters (and Beckett's a FA) in 2010, theoretically from the group of Masterson / Buchholz / Bowden. The FA class of 2010 is underwhelming (other than Beckett) with Duchscherer, Harden, and (no thanks) Lackey (and maybe a bounce-back Escobar) the only non-option starters of high quality. Yes, if the Red Sox can outbid the Angels or Yankees for one of those guys - great.

Free agency is not the only way to acquire pitching. Two years before Beckett or Matsuzaka were acquired, would they have been on our radar screen as likely additions to our roster?

And two years is a long time in baseball. I'm not sold on Salty as the answer to our prayers, but which is worse - the certainty that we have no catcher right now or the possibility that we have no pitcher two years from now?

[Paul M]

The Sox big 3 of Beckett, Lester, and Dice K will be in place for 2009 and 2010. Sox have an option on Beckett and unless Beckett is hurt this year, he'll vest that option.

I voted yes, of course. I think they have a chance to get a very good offensive catcher--please focus on the vs. RHP--and they have a gigantic hole at catcher in 2009. I'd be prudent about dealing their best potential top of the rotation replacement but the 2011 roster is too far away for me.

[SoxFanPJ]

The reason this question is so tough is the respective ceilings of both players and how likely they are to hit them.

I would keep in mind that Saltalamacchia at age 22-23 has averaged a 91 OPS+ over 506 ABs in parts of two seasons.
Varitek debuted in Boston in 1998 at age 26 and from age 26-28 he put up OPS+ of 83, 101, and 82.

Will Salty develop into the .850-870 OPS (120-123 OPS+) hitter that Varitek was at his peak combined with his defensive reputation? It is possible, but it seems likely that Salty could develop into a better hitter then Varitek but a poorer defensive catcher.

Generally speaking the best hitting catchers in recent years have been between .770-.870 OPS with a guy or two jumping up into the .900 OPS range.

Salty's pitchers per at-bat jumped nicely last season 4.39 vs. 3.59/3.70 in 2007, his BB/PA jumped to .135 vs 0.65/0.51 in 2007, his BB/K went from 0.42 vs. 0.36/0.19, and his OBP went ti .352 from .310 while his BA actually decreased .266 to .253.

I think there are concerns about Salty's approach but he showed some real improvement from 2007 to 2008 and I think that bodes well for his future, particularly given his age and relative lack of long term experience hitting at AA/AAA before reaching the majors.

[Bellhorn]

I'm less pessimistic about Buchholz than many on this board, and I still voted yes. Though that might change depending on the best estimate of how many runs he gives back defensively behind the plate.

[diehard24]

The Sox big 3 of Beckett, Lester, and Dice K will be in place for 2009 and 2010. Sox have an option on Beckett and unless Beckett is hurt this year, he'll vest that option.

I voted yes, of course. I think they have a chance to get a very good offensive catcher--please focus on the vs. RHP--and they have a gigantic hole at catcher in 2009. I'd be prudent about dealing their best potential top of the rotation replacement but the 2011 roster is too far away for me.

I voted no for the simple reason that, one to one, I think Buchholz has more upside than Salty. My concern with Buch reaching his upside is his confidence, his head (trusting his stuff, so to speak). With Salty, I'm concerned about his ability to put it all together at the plate, and behind it, but particularly the latter. Mind you, as a prospect (i.e.,: a player still growing into his potential, not who is no longer eligible to be a rookie), Salty's questions are not so concerning that I wouldn't want to take a chance on him, just not at the expense of giving up Buchholz. In the end, I think Buch's upside is higher at his position, and I think he's shown more glimpses at higher levels that he can reach it.

[JakeRae]

I voted no, but I'm on the fence. My no vote is to a straight up swap with no other moving parts. I still think Buchholz for Salty could be a reasonable framework to base a trade around, but that the Sox should be getting something else back, probably a Beltre type young guy with big upside. (I'm using Beltre at the time we traded him as an example, Beltre as he stands now is probably too valuable.)

I would much rather see this trade get based around Bowden or Masterson going the other way.

[Paul M]

We can talk upside, but what about expected value and what about marginal product where Salty might be the safer play and adds more value to the 2009 and 2010 Boston Red Sox.

I like the example of flip-flopping the guys and would we do this deal--and holding everything else constant where the pitcher is the position of greater need. On another board, we call this the pencil theory. In short, the experiment is trading a pencil among elementary school kids; you'll find that is hard to get someone to trade one pencil for another, largely idential, pencil. Buchholz is our pencil and we have an emotional attachment to him. We like to think we can talk about guys as if there were commodities, but I think it is hard at times. (Philly, Tony, et al if I mangled the analogy, chime in)

[TomRicardo]

I voted no. I think Texas will end up caving in for Masterson or Bowden. No reason to sell Buchholz if you can sell Bowden instead.

[jtn46]

The Sox big 3 of Beckett, Lester, and Dice K will be in place for 2009 and 2010. Sox have an option on Beckett and unless Beckett is hurt this year, he'll vest that option.

I voted yes, of course. I think they have a chance to get a very good offensive catcher--please focus on the vs. RHP--and they have a gigantic hole at catcher in 2009. I'd be prudent about dealing their best potential top of the rotation replacement but the 2011 roster is too far away for me.

Yup. The Red Sox FO put themselves in a position of weakness because they haven't developed a catcher to replace Varitek. Buchholz is the better prospect, but there aren't an unlimited amount of teams to trade with to get a catcher. The worst thing that can happen here isn't that they do nothing, it's that they give up lesser guys than Clay and end up with a guy who flames out. Then they're out prospects and they still need a catcher. Do what it takes to get the best guy they can get and don't look back.

[SoxFanSince57]

While I would really like to make the trade, I voted "no". It is my guess that the Rangers are seeking Buchholz for Saltalamacchia and the Sox have already rejected the offer. Based on my belief that the Sox don't value Salty as highly as they do Buchholz and my preference for the team to grow pitchers internally rather than buy them on the FA market, I am reluctantly on the side of retaining both Buchholz and Bowden.

As others have noted, I also think that the Sox have to be prepared to enter the 2009 off-season without Penny, Smoltz and Wake and the '10 off-season with the expectation that Beckett may not re-sign with the team. As such, even with Buchholz and Bowden the Sox FO will be looking for additional arms.

The Sox may be able to win the WS without a strong catcher, but they sure can't expect to make it into the post-season without a strong pitching staff. Pitching rules.

[Harry Hooper]

I think both Saltalamacchia and Buchholz are going to disappoint in the bigs.

Saltalamacchia has had his struggles, offensive and defensive, plus the track record of prospects that Atlanta has traded away is not encouraging.

Buchholz has top-tier talent but may be more interested in off-field pursuits than on-field performance.

I'd trade Buchholz but not for Saltalamacchia. Sox need a catcher ready for a large MLB role in 2009, not a project (for which internal options exist).

[NomarsFool]

In this day and age, a good hitting catcher is harder to find than decent starting pitcher, IMHO.

[E5 Yaz]

I voted No, for a few reasons. I value defense over offense at catcher and would rather see Teagarden. Like TRic, I think Texas might back off the price -- or, rather, improve the price. The Texas native tie is so strong there that it's possible the Rangers will go Saltalamacchia-plus for Buchholz ... especially if they're convinced the Sox prefer Monero.

But as for the poll question, I think Buchholz is too steep a price one-for-one for a guy who might not even be a catcher much longer because of body-type and defensive shortcomings

[Savin Hillbilly]

The poll is closer than I expected. I voted "yes," both because SP is a position of organizational strength and because I have strong lingering doubts about Clay's makeup and consequent likelihood of achieving what he's capable of. I agree that Buchholz has the higher upside, but I also think we now have grounds for serious doubt about whether (or how soon) he's going to get there. Salty seems like a safer bet on the downside, and his upside is still pretty darn good.

To me, it boils down to this: which would be worse, trading Jim Palmer for Jim Pagliaroni, or passing up a chance to trade Brian Rose for Joe Torre? (Or substitute upside/downside comps of your choice--you get the idea.)

[The Boomer]

The poll is closer than I expected. I voted "yes," both because SP is a position of organizational strength and because I have strong lingering doubts about Clay's makeup and consequent likelihood of achieving what he's capable of. I agree that Buchholz has the higher upside, but I also think we now have grounds for serious doubt about whether (or how soon) he's going to get there. Salty seems like a safer bet on the downside, and his upside is still pretty darn good.

To me, it boils down to this: which would be worse, trading Jim Palmer for Jim Pagliaroni, or passing up a chance to trade Brian Rose for Joe Torre? (Or substitute upside/downside comps of your choice--you get the idea.)

There have been questions about the Buchholz makeup since before the Sox signed him (computer theft in H.S.). Worst case, he is then next fun loving Bo Belinski (no hit phenom turned playboy). Maybe he's Nuke Lalooch (million dollar arm and a 10 cent head). Best case, he is the righty version of Jon Lester or better. Salty's potential probably lies somewhere between Mike Stanley and Joe Torre. I voted no. My gut is that, even if he might be the next Bo Belinski, you need to hold onto him until you find out how this story ends (unless you are almost sure that he has no chance to fulfill his potential). Salty has already been traded for a ransom once. He might be traded again (sooner or later) if Teegarden tops him. Given the possibility that, in the long run, Salty probably won't stay at catcher, I would not make the move unless a combination of Bowden and Bard (and no more) will be acceptable.

Edited by The Boomer, 09 January 2009 - 06:02 PM.

[geoduck no quahog]

I have strong lingering doubts about Clay's makeup and consequent likelihood of achieving what he's capable of

It sure seems that if Buchholz figures out a way to make his fastball controlled and effective - he's gold. Isn't a fastball the easiest pitch to learn how to control ? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem that far fetched for this guy to live up to expectations. My guess is that, with maturity (and marriage, and kids, blah, blah, blah) he's got a real chance to settle in both mentally and pitcherly. It's not as if he has to learn a screwball to survive. I think his makeup can improve with age.

That's why I wouldn't do a straight-up trade.

Edited by geoduck no quahog, 09 January 2009 - 06:31 PM.

[redsoxstiff]

I voted for the trade...We seem to be in better than good shape for pitching so...getting a catcher who can hit makes a lot of sense ...

[mt8thsw9th]

edit - moved

Edited by mt8thsw9th, 09 January 2009 - 07:15 PM.

[OCD SS]

I'm also surprised it's as close as it is.

Buchholz's potential is much, much higher than Bowden's or Masterson's. To me this is like saying that we can afford to move Lars because we have Rizzo. Buchholz has more upside than Salty, and a clearer path to realizing it. Salty needs to establish his value both behind the plate and at it to be worth a deal; he's not going to be worth much to the Sox as a 1Bman/ DH.

This value leads me to what caused me to vote "no": Buchholz is the closest thing the Sox have to an elite trade chip. If they're going to try to acquire a middle of the order young hitter, they're going to need Buchholz to do it; Bowden or Masterson aren't enough to form the basis for such a package because no one can look a them and think "# 1." Salty isn't that kind of hitter, and caving into Texas would essentially end that pursuit.

[diehard24]

I'm also surprised it's as close as it is.

Buchholz's potential is much, much higher than Bowden's or Masterson's. To me this is like saying that we can afford to move Lars because we have Rizzo. Buchholz has more upside than Salty, and a clearer path to realizing it. Salty needs to establish his value both behind the plate and at it to be worth a deal; he's not going to be worth much to the Sox as a 1Bman/ DH.

This value leads me to what caused me to vote "no": Buchholz is the closest thing the Sox have to an elite trade chip. If they're going to try to acquire a middle of the order young hitter, they're going to need Buchholz to do it; Bowden or Masterson aren't enough to form the basis for such a package because no one can look a them and think "# 1." Salty isn't that kind of hitter, and caving into Texas would essentially end that pursuit.

Good stuff, OCD. And a nice way to make plain that the position-depth argument is not a good one. And Lars isn't even the same level of prospect Buchholz is.

[Plympton91]

I am with those who would give up Buchholz for Teagarden but not for Saltalamaccia. I wouldn't give up any of the top 4 pitching prospects for Saltalamaccia, actually. The fundamental question that has not been answered is whether Saltalamaccia is a catcher, and if he's not a catcher he's not that special. If he's a first baseman or a DH, then he'd have to be a once in a generation type talent to warrant that type of trade value. Plus, they've got Anderson for 1b and a gazillion options at DH even if/when Ortiz moves on or out.

[D Jack's Dome]

I'm also surprised it's as close as it is.

Buchholz's potential is much, much higher than Bowden's or Masterson's. To me this is like saying that we can afford to move Lars because we have Rizzo. Buchholz has more upside than Salty, and a clearer path to realizing it. Salty needs to establish his value both behind the plate and at it to be worth a deal; he's not going to be worth much to the Sox as a 1Bman/ DH.

This value leads me to what caused me to vote "no": Buchholz is the closest thing the Sox have to an elite trade chip. If they're going to try to acquire a middle of the order young hitter, they're going to need Buchholz to do it; Bowden or Masterson aren't enough to form the basis for such a package because no one can look a them and think "# 1." Salty isn't that kind of hitter, and caving into Texas would essentially end that pursuit.

Yup yup. Signing Penny & Smoltz to one year deals doesn't mean we trade away our best pitching prospect. Nothing has changed on the salty for Buchholz front for me. The kid needs to straighten out his head (addressing geoduck no quahog) IMO, not so much his mechanics. OCD is 100 percent right. A month ago, most people would say no, now because we have 1 year of pitching depth we're going to trade our future? Crazy.

[wyatt55]

Salty's only 25 yrs old and flat out rakes righties. I could see him being a heckuva platoon with (that's right, I'm going there) our erstwhile Captain. Salty's young, can learn, can get the lion's share of the ABs and have Tek call the pitches from the bench. Tek can get his rest (as EV says he needs), hit against lefties who he's had success against (.284, .862 OPS in 60 games last year) and can bounce back from the love-life drama of 2008. Give JV $4 mil with incentives and have Bard as injury and suck insurance.

Despite this, I'm voting No straight up. I believe the Sox can get Salty (due to his defensive shortcomings and mere "potential" offensive upside) for Bowden or Bard. It may take a couple of Rangers Pitchers going down in ST to push the deal through though.

For sure, (or I hope) Theo knows more about Clay's head than I do so I won't freak out if they do trade Clay for Salty straight up. I just have high hopes for Clay and want to see him put it together here in Boston.

In any event, I expect Tek to rebound to .255, 12 and 68 non-platoon next year and hope they sign him on the cheap.

[Paul M]

Two questions given it is overwhelming amongst those that are posting that Clay is > Salty:

1. Would you accept the deal if it were Teagarden? (I would be less inclined fwiw, but I guess the Sox prefer him so it doesn't matter what I think, though I'd still do it I guess). Teagarden had a weird 2008 and I'm not really sure what to think about his projected performance over the next few years.

2. What player would be acceptable for Buchholz straight up?

Also, there is no way in hell Texas trades Salty for Daniel Bard. None. Bard might not even rank in the top 15 Texas prospects and you don't trade a guy like Salty for a relief prospect. And Texas won't do Bowden either. Maybe the compromise is Masterson, but Texas will have to believe he's a starting pitcher that is a #2/#3 level guy. Texas is not what it used to be as far as the farm system goes and has quite a bit of leverage here.

[wyatt55]

1. Would you accept the deal if it were Teagarden? (I would be less inclined fwiw, but I guess the Sox prefer him so it doesn't matter what I think, though I'd still do it I guess). Teagarden had a weird 2008 and I'm not really sure what to think about his projected performance over the next few years.

... Texas is not what it used to be as far as the farm system goes and has quite a bit of leverage here.

Paul, the answer for me to question 1 is Yes, I would (with the caveat that I don't where Clay's brain is - no guarantee Theo does either but ...). From what I understand, Teagarden's offensive upside is great and he doesn't carry the long term defensive position concerns that Salty does. FWIW, I've heard good things about Teagarden's leadership abilities. He's still green but I think Teagarden > Saltalamacchia as a young, potential long-term answer at C. I also think, IIRC, he'll be under cost control longer - not a huge deal but it tips the scales further. Salty does have a bigger sample size for offense, but if he can't Catch, why are we trading our #1 chip for someone who eventually won't be able to fill our #1 need?

Great point about the Rangers farm system and their current leverage. These aren't your older brother's Rangers, wildly desperate for any quality SP prospect. They now not only have multiple Catcher chips, they also have a pretty good amount of young SP with upside (Harrison, Hurley, Diamond, - Hell, even Mendoza and Nippert showed flashes, albeit brief. Gabbard and McCarthy are still young) so they're not as SP destitute as the Rangers usually are. They've got a decent amount to throw against the wall. But Buchholz would still be at the top of that list I believe.

And also Jon Daniels has come a long way as a GM from his early days (his recent moves have been much better - Gagne and Teixeira, even Volquez for Hamilton). If this deal was on the table even 1 year ago, I bet Daniels would've caved by now and pulled the trigger (Teagarden for Buchholz). Now, he's willing to be more patient. Perhaps really use that leverage should a playoff-bound team have an injury, or if the Sox C position is giant suckhole in mid-May, try and take advantage. Mark my words, the 2009 Rangers (or Red Shoes, as we call them) if healthy, will hit, will score a ton of runs, will play brutal IF defense and will have a solid bullpen. And if even two of these SP youngsters can figure it out, they will contend. As an aside, they'll still likely to try and dump Padilla and/or Millwood at the deadline for the right pieces if they're not in the thick of it.

[grantb]

I said yes, mostly because I think that Saltalamacchia would be more valuable to the Boston Red Sox over the next 2 seasons than Buchholz will be, and possibly as valuable in the long-run as Buchholz will be.
With all the questions surrounding Saltalamacchia's ability to be a catcher long term, his desire to become a better defensive catcher and stay at the catching position long term encourages me beyond these doubts. Not to beat a dead horse, but Jarrod's defensive abilities are not that far behind those of Varitek when he was younger (according to other posters here), and it should be expected that he will be able to improve, especially with his dedication to the position. On the Boston squad, I don't think Jarrod would be moved to first base or designated hitter without enduring a significant injury.

[Wakefield's Heart]

No. Too much to potentially gain by holding onto Clay. If Buch pans out, he's a cost-controlled, top of the rotation, multi-tooled starter for the foreseeable future. If Saltalamacchia pans out, he's a solid hitter and catcher, which is an important part of a championship club, but it's not the key cog(s) in the wheel. I think of it this way: Do the Sox with the 2004 or 2007 World Series without Pedro, Schilling, DLowe or Foulke, or Beckett, Lester and Papelbon? Never. No chance.

Do they win it without Tek?

True that we'll never really know. But I'd rather take my chances with Tek out of those equations than any of those starters out. Also, with Farrell on board, I think even a combo of second string catchers doesn't compromise that much in terms of how the pitching staff ultimately performs. Particularly given who our '09 starters are.

If Farrelll wasn't our pithing coach though, there's a good chance I'd feel different.

Edited by Wakefield's Heart, 10 January 2009 - 01:54 AM.

[Tudor Fever]

No. Too much to potentially gain by holding onto Clay. If Buch pans out, he's a cost-controlled, top of the rotation, multi-tooled starter for the foreseeable future. If Saltalamacchia pans out, he's a solid hitter and catcher, which is an important part of a championship club, but it's not the key cog(s) in the wheel. I think of it this way: Do the Sox with the 2004 or 2007 World Series without Pedro, Schilling, DLowe or Foulke, or Beckett, Lester and Papelbon? Never. No chance.

Do they win it without Tek?

True that we'll never really know. But I'd rather take my chances with Tek out of those equations than any of those starters out. Also, with Farrell on board, I think even a combo of second string catchers doesn't compromise that much in terms of how the pitching staff ultimately performs. Particularly given who our '09 starters are.

If Farrelll wasn't our pithing coach though, there's a good chance I'd feel different.

But it's ridiculous to compare Buchholz to the top pitchers on the 2004 and 2007 teams. You could more validly compare him to Byung-Hyun Kim right after 2004.

[grantb]

But it's ridiculous to compare Buchholz to the top pitchers on the 2004 and 2007 teams. You could more validly compare him to Byung-Hyun Kim right after 2004.

Heh, I like this post, but I don't think that's what he was doing. After all, it wouldn't be fair to compare Saltalamacchia with Varitek in 2004 and 2007 either. Rather, those two comparisons are the perceived potential for both players, and he was trying to see which would be more valuable to a playoff run.

[norm from cheers]

I found Mike Hindman's blog entry from Thursday (Dallas Morning News ) interesting as to what the Rangers might be thinking:

"I would be shocked if Daniels could land Buchholz for Salalmacchia alone no matter how many starters Boston signs this winter. For Teagarden straight up? Maybe.
Thus, the question for Daniels -- and for you -- is whether Texas would be better off giving up Teagarden, or Saltalamacchia plus a strong but not quite elite pitching prospect like Omar Poveda or Neil Ramirez."

http://rangersblog.d...n-now-nine.html

[mfried]

Two questions given it is overwhelming amongst those that are posting that Clay is > Salty:

1. Would you accept the deal if it were Teagarden? (I would be less inclined fwiw, but I guess the Sox prefer him so it doesn't matter what I think, though I'd still do it I guess). Teagarden had a weird 2008 and I'm not really sure what to think about his projected performance over the next few years.

2. What player would be acceptable for Buchholz straight up?

Also, there is no way in hell Texas trades Salty for Daniel Bard. None. Bard might not even rank in the top 15 Texas prospects and you don't trade a guy like Salty for a relief prospect. And Texas won't do Bowden either. Maybe the compromise is Masterson, but Texas will have to believe he's a starting pitcher that is a #2/#3 level guy. Texas is not what it used to be as far as the farm system goes and has quite a bit of leverage here.

Masterson has proved that he has the mental and physical equipment to pitch in the major leagues AT LEAST from the bullpen, and probably as a #3 starter. Buchholz has some brilliant elements in his pitching arsenal, but has not shown that he can handle the MLB gig mentally. I actually think he would be worse out of the bullpen than starting. Contrary to all the wisdom I'm reading - at this point Masterson is more valuable than Buchholz. Clay may or may not make the leap to #2 quality. The gap between potential and achievement leads me to vote yes on this trade. Salty's gap is smaller on both defensive and offensive counts.

[Trautwein's Degree]

What's with all of the talk of "Clay's head" in this thread? Was his head on straight when he put up good numbers in Pawtucket last year?

It takes most pitchers, especially in the AL East, at least 2 seasons in the bigs to truly make the jump. Name the last guy to come out of the minors and dominate with consistency in the AL East. It just doesn't happen.

All of Clay's minor league numbers indicate that he should be a first rate major league pitcher. Maybe it doesn't happen but right now, the safe money is that he'll develop into a front line major league starter.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 10 January 2009 - 08:49 AM.

[URI]

It takes most pitchers, especially in the AL East, at least 2 seasons in the bigs to truly make the jump. Name the last guy to come out of the minors and dominate with consistency in the AL East. It just doesn't happen.

Joba Chamberlain

[Trautwein's Degree]

Joba Chamberlain

Sorry for not being clear, I was writing about starting pitchers.

I was thinking the answer was Roger Clemens but he hardly dominated in 84 or 85.

[Tudor Fever]

It takes most pitchers, especially in the AL East, at least 2 seasons in the bigs to truly make the jump.

Actually, Buchholz's career ERA is much better against AL East teams than it is against other teams.
Overall: 5.56
Against AL East: 4.25
Against others: 7.09

[ShaneTrot]

Clay had a k/9 rate of 8.53 for Boston in 2008. He misses bats. Even in a year where he fell apart, he still had an excellent K-rate. This may be the nadir of his trade value. If he starts off well in Pawtucket or Boston, perhaps he can bring more than Salty or the Sox keep him.

[OCD SS]

Two questions given it is overwhelming amongst those that are posting that Clay is > Salty:

1. Would you accept the deal if it were Teagarden? (I would be less inclined fwiw, but I guess the Sox prefer him so it doesn't matter what I think, though I'd still do it I guess). Teagarden had a weird 2008 and I'm not really sure what to think about his projected performance over the next few years.

I wouldn't, because I think there are some pretty significant questions about Teagarden that were covered up by his MLB performance last year. I think the big questions about him are his K rate, but more importantly his durability. He's already had some injuries to his throwing arm IIRC.

He actually reminds me of Ellsbury. His callup offense was well above what you would expect from his minor league numbers and the potential regression might be covered by his defense.

2. What player would be acceptable for Buchholz straight up?

I can't , but I think that speaks to what the Sox need. They'd either get more for him, or add to him to get something bigger (ie the "Hanley theory").

Also, there is no way in hell Texas trades Salty for Daniel Bard. None. Bard might not even rank in the top 15 Texas prospects and you don't trade a guy like Salty for a relief prospect. And Texas won't do Bowden either. Maybe the compromise is Masterson, but Texas will have to believe he's a starting pitcher that is a #2/#3 level guy. Texas is not what it used to be as far as the farm system goes and has quite a bit of leverage here.

I think this is where some of the rumors are getting mixed up. The Sox offer for Salty is prefered to be Bowden and Bard; Bard they wouldn't deal for Montero and that makes sense. Montero doesn't look as good Salty at all.

[AlNipper49]

Sorry for not being clear, I was writing about starting pitchers.

I was thinking the answer was Roger Clemens but he hardly dominated in 84 or 85.

http://www.baseball-.../wangch01.shtml

[URI]

He meant starting pitchers in the AL East who came directly from the minors that aren't on the Yankees.

Anyway, the problem with Buchholz, as been stated, is that he's a victim of the kind of odd psychoanalysis that follows falling short of expectations. Recently, it happened to Pedroia (he should cut down on his swing!!!) and it's going to happen to Lars XVI Anderson when he comes up to if he doesn't immediately hit like Justin Morneau.

Buchholz has tremendous value still, even if he only becomes the second or third best starter on a staff...he's still young enough to develop into a very good major leaguer. And because of that, I would vote no, because Saltalamacchia's window is much more narrow, considering his defensive deficiencies, and the fact that catcher's attrition rates are just about as scary as pitchers.

[Trautwein's Degree]

http://www.baseball-.../wangch01.shtml

Dominating is better than 32 walks to 48ks in your first 116 innings pitched.

Anyway, the problem with Buchholz, as been stated, is that he's a victim of the kind of odd psychoanalysis that follows falling short of expectations. Recently, it happened to Pedroia (he should cut down on his swing!!!) and it's going to happen to Lars XVI Anderson when he comes up to if he doesn't immediately hit like Justin Morneau.

Tim Lincecum, Felix Hernandez, and Dwight Gooden are the exceptions to the rule.

The rule is that young starters take time to mature into aces. Roy Halladay, Brandon Webb, and Jon Lester are the examples of the rule. Hell, until May of last year, Jon Lester was a victim of the "odd pyschoanalysis that follows falling short of expectations." Buchholz can, will, and should be given several more chances to make the leap to a front of the rotation starter.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 10 January 2009 - 12:02 PM.

[URI]

Dominating is better than 32 walks to 48ks in your first 116 innings pitched.
Tim Lincecum, Felix Hernandez, and Dwight Gooden are the exceptions to the rule.

The rule is that young starters take time to mature into aces. Roy Halladay, Brandon Webb, and Jon Lester are the examples of the rule. Hell, until May of last year, Jon Lester was a victim of the "odd pyschoanalysis that follows falling short of expectations." Buchholz can, will, and should be given several more chances to make the leap to a front of the rotation starter, that based on past performance he should be able to make.

No he wasn't. People blamed missing time due to cancer (and a poor walk rate) for his struggles. No one thought it was a mental block/deficiency that kept him from greatness, like what is coming up with Buchholz or with Pedroia's refusal to shorten up.

I don't think Buchholz is going to get many more chances with the Red Sox if he falters this year. I still think he has plenty of MLB rope, but if he doesn't turn it around, I dount think it will be in Boston. Then you'll hear stories about how he couldn't mentally handle the AL East.

[Paul M]

There are plenty of young pitchers that at least can be productive when they come up, though. Buchholz in 2009 will be insurance and I have to think part of the reason for getting both Penny and Smoltz is they might let him go and/or not sure what to expect in 2009. At that point, he'll be 25 and with not much of a resume at all and then he no longer is in the same peer group as the young aces who struggle. In fact, he's not THAT young right now. 24 isn't old but this is a big year for him.

Mussina, Sele, Kazmir are three I can say right away were able to be very good and in the AL East. I think what Halladay did might be as much the exception to completely get knocked on his ass and then get back.

We didn't/don't need Clay to be Gooden or Lincecum, but maybe Aaron Sele would have been fine. In fact, Sele in some ways reminds me of Buchholz. That's neither a shot or a compliment.

[SoxFanPJ]

When Buchholz flew through the system it was on the strength of not only a K-rate but a tremendous K/BB ratio. He was striking guys out and not walking hardly anyone.

2005: College 4.45/Lowell 5.00
2006:Greenville 4.03/Wilmington 5.75
2007: Portland 5.27/ Pawtucket 4.23/ Boston 2.20
2008: Portland 18.0/ Pawtucket 2.53/ Boston 1.76/ Scottsdale 1.89

http://www.soxprospe...chholz-clay.htm

His BB/PA% and K/PA%

2005 Lowell 5.5%/27.4%
2006 Greenville 7.1%/28.5% Wilmington 6.6%/37.7%
2007 Portland 6.6%/34.9% Pawtucket 7.9%/33.5% Boston 11.4%/25.0%
2008 Portland 1.9%/34.0% Pawtucket 9.6%/24.3% Boston 11.5%/20.2%

His tremendous minor league success hasn't translated to the MLB level and it appears that it also affected his return to AAA last season. I don't know what is at the root of the problem, altered mechanics, mental focus or something else, but this certainly seems to be at the root of the difference between the success he had in the minors and the lack of success (no hitter aside) he has had in the majors.

[OCD SS]

I found Mike Hindman's blog entry from Thursday (Dallas Morning News ) interesting as to what the Rangers might be thinking:

"I would be shocked if Daniels could land Buchholz for Salalmacchia alone no matter how many starters Boston signs this winter. For Teagarden straight up? Maybe.
Thus, the question for Daniels -- and for you -- is whether Texas would be better off giving up Teagarden, or Saltalamacchia plus a strong but not quite elite pitching prospect like Omar Poveda or Neil Ramirez."

http://rangersblog.d...n-now-nine.html

The only way I can see that working out is with Theo starting off asking for one of Feliz or Holland and being willing to accept Michael Main.

[SoxScout]

Always think back to...

"It could get rough. Right now, there's a lot of hope [about the team's young talent]. But remember, the most popular player on the football team is always the backup quarterback. When [second base prospect Dustin] Pedroia gets up here and he hits a buck-fifty, discovers he can't reach the wall and can't find his stroke because it's freezing out -- well, that will happen. The rest of the organization really needs to realize this." -- Theo, in Feeding the Monster

I know everyone wants instant gratification, but you really need to chill out. If Buchholz isn't a damn good starter in his age 25/26 seasons in 2010/11, then maybe you start wondering what's up, but until then you just have to ride the wave.

Yes his control was missing last year, but all other indicators were in order, hell, he even had a 9 point swing in ground ball rate in the right direction. Everyone would be singing a different tune if his .355 BABIP and 61% Strand Rate didn't make him one of the most unluckiest pitchers in all of baseball, if they were anything close to normal he would have never been sent to the minors in the first place.