Should the Red Sox be planning to bring back Buchholz in 2017?

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,504
This decision doesn't need to be made until after the season, when we will know how he pitched over the last month. Nobody knows how that is going to go. He could blow out his arm tonight for all we know. Or maybe he pitches great and throws a no-hitter in the World Series clinching game.

The point is, more stuff is going to happen and nobody yet knows what that stuff is, so there's no point in deciding this now. The Red Sox will have that info before they have to make this call.
Barring injury I'd have to imagine that the decision HAS already been made. It does appear to be a no-brainer when you factor in the market for starting pitching as well as his mechanical fix orchestrated by Bannister. He may or may not be a Red Sox in '17 (I'd still guess he would) but I cannot make a rational case for not picking up his option.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,752
Rogers Park
Pete Abe's game story says it was Bannister who caught his release point, though it doesn't say whether or not Bannister was behind the stretch idea.
I read a quote from Buchholz somewhere that suggested that he found it easier to stay in the new arm slot while pitching from the stretch, so they went with that just to remove another variable.

I think it makes sense. He doesn't need the velocity boost he'd get from the windup; what he needs is reliability, sharpness and deception on his breaking pitches.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
The other aspect to consider in whether to pick up the option is that there must b e a buyout if they don't exercise the option. So the next cost of exercising is lower than the amount of the salary.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,318
Ann Arbor
One other small, but not totally negligible, consideration is the possible qualifying offer/comp pick.

Under the new CBA, I am pretty sure you can still offer a qualifying offer even if you decline the option. TBH, that doesn't really make sense this year -- if the Sox declined the option but extended an offer, they either A) pay Buchholz more if he accepts or B) only get a comp pick when he signs elsewhere (which means they might have gotten more by picking up option/trading).

However, it could matter next offseason. Picking up the option comes at the cost of $13.5, but if you assume there is an X% chance Buchholz pitches well enough next year to extend a QO (and he signs elsewhere), you get a pick (that ranges between ~$1.5m and ~$10m net value -- after accounting for slot bonus and arb years -- depending on who you believe).

So let's say there is a 50% chance of 2017 Buchholz being good enough to get like a 3/$42 contract on the open market (seems half reasonable). Your expected value outlay might look something like ($13.5 salary) - ($0.5 buyout avoided) - (0.5 * $5m pick gained from QO) = $10.5m.
 

leftfieldlegacy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
1,013
North Jersey
I was originally opposed to picking up the option, but his role has changed now with the lowered expectations of a spot starter / relief pitcher and he seems to be comfortable and performing better in his new role. The money is a bit high for that role but it's short money and made more palatable when you look at what's available to replace him in the minors or on the free agent market. Also, Bannister's tinkering to get Clay pitching with a more consistent arm slot combined with fewer innings pitched might help Buchholz stay off the DL.
 

SpaceMan37

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2013
225
Does anyone think that the expiring CBA could affect offseason dates for things like qualifying offers, the rule 5 draft and the start of free agency? If anything is up for negotiation that could affect those things, they should delay the dates. I wouldn't be surprised if they get rid of draft pick forfeiture for signing qualified free agents, but if that happens, it will completely change offseason plans and strategies of both players and teams.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
One other small, but not totally negligible, consideration is the possible qualifying offer/comp pick.

Under the new CBA, I am pretty sure you can still offer a qualifying offer even if you decline the option. TBH, that doesn't really make sense this year -- if the Sox declined the option but extended an offer, they either A) pay Buchholz more if he accepts or B) only get a comp pick when he signs elsewhere (which means they might have gotten more by picking up option/trading).

However, it could matter next offseason. Picking up the option comes at the cost of $13.5, but if you assume there is an X% chance Buchholz pitches well enough next year to extend a QO (and he signs elsewhere), you get a pick (that ranges between ~$1.5m and ~$10m net value -- after accounting for slot bonus and arb years -- depending on who you believe).

So let's say there is a 50% chance of 2017 Buchholz being good enough to get like a 3/$42 contract on the open market (seems half reasonable). Your expected value outlay might look something like ($13.5 salary) - ($0.5 buyout avoided) - (0.5 * $5m pick gained from QO) = $10.5m.
The comp pick has value, but they can get it after 2017 too, right? So they can pick up the option one last time, play out 2017, and do a QO (assuming it's not ill-advised to do so) and come away with the pick. I'm not sure there's much time-value lost there.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,318
Ann Arbor
The comp pick has value, but they can get it after 2017 too, right? So they can pick up the option one last time, play out 2017, and do a QO (assuming it's not ill-advised to do so) and come away with the pick. I'm not sure there's much time-value lost there.
Unless I am misunderstanding your question, that's exactly what I suggested.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,318
Ann Arbor
Does anyone think that the expiring CBA could affect offseason dates for things like qualifying offers, the rule 5 draft and the start of free agency? If anything is up for negotiation that could affect those things, they should delay the dates. I wouldn't be surprised if they get rid of draft pick forfeiture for signing qualified free agents, but if that happens, it will completely change offseason plans and strategies of both players and teams.
Perhaps, but we've heard about getting rid of compensation picks for the last few CBAs and haven't done so yet.

Although my guess is the Red Sox are not going to choose to decline Buchholz's option purely because they are worried about the new CBA axing FA compensation.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
It seems to me the easy way for a compromise to be reached on the comp picks is to require the qualifying offer to be for 3 years at the average salary rather than 1 year, and to limit the ability to make a qualifying offer to once in a players' career, or to limit it only to the team that drafted/originally signed the player or traded for him from that team.

Basically write a compensation scheme that would have prevented the Red Sox from making a qualifying offer to Steven Drew.
 

Broda

New Member
Sep 12, 2016
86
This is my first post so sorry for those of you who may not be familiar with me yet.

A few disclaimers:

- I thought that one of Cherington's biggest mistakes was not selling high on Buch last year before he got hurt. He could've gotten a truck load of prospects for him, and frankly had Benny done his job properly there with Buch (and probably Koji too) the Sox probably have a guy like Sale in their rotation right now. Benny also didn't like moving clearly flawed prospects like Marrero and Owens at their peak value either....something I was frustrated with a few times.

- I was never as big on Buch as some of the national publications. I preferred Lester as a prospect.

- Watching him this year has, at times, made me want to gouge my eyes out.

But...

I think they will pick up the option because (as others have said) they have no depth in the minors now (especially after moving Wilkerson), Wright's now balky shoulder (damn you, NL Baseball!), and the fact that he is just a year removed from a pretty darn good performance that would be well worth the money.

I disagree that he's worth the money right now. this is a very speculative play, and he also is unlikely to get $13m per year in a contract this winter, but he would surpass that total value. I can't imagine him even getting JA Happ money this winter. But he would at least get the nice masterson pillow contract and get a shot to rebuild.

I am curious about his trade value, especially since his fast ball velocity has been pretty bad in some starts (of course that's also being based on the TV gun) he's had starts in the 90-92 range and he doesn't have the control/command to live there. Plus his mechanics are not consistent. He had pitches yesterday against Toronto when his rotation looked totally different. He's always been a drop and drive pitcher, but this year his leg drive has been maddeningly inconsistent.

It's hard to say lets pay this guy $13m and not count on him for anything, but when you have the financial assets and lack any other cheaper, similar options (i guess Owens could throw a 5.30 era out there as a swing man if we needed him to?) and a guy who has had Cy level runs through the AL, I think DD gives this one more go. Especially when the SP who might be the most money in FA is either Rich Hill or Ivan Nova (sleep is Kazmir who may opt out and strike while the iron is hot at the top SP arm).
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,318
Ann Arbor
I am curious about his trade value, especially since his fast ball velocity has been pretty bad in some starts (of course that's also being based on the TV gun) he's had starts in the 90-92 range and he doesn't have the control/command to live there. Plus his mechanics are not consistent. He had pitches yesterday against Toronto when his rotation looked totally different. He's always been a drop and drive pitcher, but this year his leg drive has been maddeningly inconsistent.
First, welcome to SoSH.

Second, I wouldn't rely on the TV gun, but rather PitchF/X data. All of Buchholz's second half starts have featured his best fastball velocity since the middle of 2014. (per Fangraphs)



Yesterday's 3rd was a cluster that was primarily on Buchholz (although I think that inning/game looks a lot differently if EE's broken bat liner ends up in Pedey's glove), but again, the team doesn't need him to be a #2 starter right now (or next year). Even if he's 50/50 good/bad Buchholz, that's still borderline $13m value in this market (whether they hold or trade him).

BTW, for how terrible Buchholz was early in the season, it's somewhat surprising that yesterday's 3 IP, 6 ER clunker was his worst by game score this year (15).
 

Broda

New Member
Sep 12, 2016
86
First, welcome to SoSH.

Second, I wouldn't rely on the TV gun, but rather PitchF/X data. All of Buchholz's second half starts have featured his best fastball velocity since the middle of 2014. (per Fangraphs)



Yesterday's 3rd was a cluster that was primarily on Buchholz (although I think that inning/game looks a lot differently if EE's broken bat liner ends up in Pedey's glove), but again, the team doesn't need him to be a #2 starter right now (or next year). Even if he's 50/50 good/bad Buchholz, that's still borderline $13m value in this market (whether they hold or trade him).

BTW, for how terrible Buchholz was early in the season, it's somewhat surprising that yesterday's 3 IP, 6 ER clunker was his worst by game score this year (15).
Yeah the uptick in velocity is not surprising. To me it looked like he fixed his mechanics and got back to more "drop" is his drop and drive delivery. Early this year was too much "stay tall and fall." It's no surprise at all that his best starts are coming with some increased velocity. Buch doesn't have the command and control to sit high 80s or 90ish.
 

Hee Sox Choi

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 27, 2006
6,134
I hope no one wants to plunk down 13.5 mil for Buchholz. I'd rather kick in a few more mil and get someone else. Peeps are predicting 3/45 for Rich Hill. Someone brought this up with Dave Cameron at FG and this was his reply:

Dave Cameron: I don’t think he’ll get three years, so $45M seems high to me. I’d probably guess 2/$35M or something in that range.

So why give Clay 13 mil when you can kick in 4 or 5 more per year and get Hill, who might choose Boston over a lot of other places if the offers are similar?
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,318
Ann Arbor
So why give Clay 13 mil when you can kick in 4 or 5 more per year and get Hill, who might choose Boston over a lot of other places if the offers are similar?
People hate the fact that Buchholz has only averaged about 160 innings per year over his big league career.

Rich Hill hasn't hit 160 innings in a season in 10 years. Actually, he hasn't hit 100 innings in a season (in affiliated ball, at least) in 10 years.

The fact that someone would pay Rich Hill 2/$35 (or 3/$45) for his age 37-38 (37-39) seasons would only make Buchholz's option more valuable.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,752
Rogers Park
I hope no one wants to plunk down 13.5 mil for Buchholz. I'd rather kick in a few more mil and get someone else. Peeps are predicting 3/45 for Rich Hill. Someone brought this up with Dave Cameron at FG and this was his reply:

Dave Cameron: I don’t think he’ll get three years, so $45M seems high to me. I’d probably guess 2/$35M or something in that range.

So why give Clay 13 mil when you can kick in 4 or 5 more per year and get Hill, who might choose Boston over a lot of other places if the offers are similar?
You could also retain Buchholz and trade him if and when a better option for that spot becomes unexpectedly available.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
They should, with no doubt, pick up the option and trade him. For the $500k, they could buy a lottery ticket (worst case scenario) or potentially get a decent prospect in return. I still don't want him on the team and I don't buy that Bannister made some revelation and cured him. Which still wouldn't do anything about the annual injury issues.

If someone wants to make the argument he should be retained as a back end bullpen option or 7th starter, hey it's not my money but I think that would be a waste. I think you could get something out of an NL team that might see potential for a trading deadline flip if he pitches well for them.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,318
Ann Arbor
You could also retain Buchholz and trade him if and when a better option for that spot becomes unexpectedly available.
Yes, by more valuable I meant "relative to the market" rather than "relative to Boston's staff."

I think he has more value to the Red Sox than people seem to believe, but, just like I noted last offseason, the Sox should still absolutely pick up the option and flip him for a few lottery tickets if they don't want him on the roster anymore.

Rich Hill getting a big money contract when he's in the back half of his 30s and about to broach 100 innings for the first time in a decade would only increase the number or quality of said lottery tickets.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I hope no one wants to plunk down 13.5 mil for Buchholz. I'd rather kick in a few more mil and get someone else. Peeps are predicting 3/45 for Rich Hill. Someone brought this up with Dave Cameron at FG and this was his reply:

Dave Cameron: I don’t think he’ll get three years, so $45M seems high to me. I’d probably guess 2/$35M or something in that range.

So why give Clay 13 mil when you can kick in 4 or 5 more per year and get Hill, who might choose Boston over a lot of other places if the offers are similar?
The Sox shouldn't be planning to spend anywhere near that money for a fifth starter (as in five people, not 5th in hierarchy) for next season, unless someone blows out a joint between now and then. Assuming Wright is okay long term, they role with what they have and maybe sign up some AAA fodder. There's no rational explanation for spending $18M for someone like rich hill, even if he could guarantee 180 IP.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,752
Rogers Park
The Sox shouldn't be planning to spend anywhere near that money for a fifth starter (as in five people, not 5th in hierarchy) for next season, unless someone blows out a joint between now and then. Assuming Wright is okay long term, they role with what they have and maybe sign up some AAA fodder. There's no rational explanation for spending $18M for someone like rich hill, even if he could guarantee 180 IP.
In Wright's last ten starts, he had a 5.55 ERA with peripherals to match. Freak shoulder injury aside, I'm not at all sure that's a safe assumption.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,933
Really nice and revealing interview from SOSHer David Laurila. It's great to read an interview where the player is actually asked about on-field playing issues, not the usual off-field soap opera BS. Thanks, David.

Clay sure does love his cutter. But he gets some backing info from Bannister:

"On his cutter: “I threw a slider in college, but stopped throwing it after my first year [of professional baseball]. The slider is really hard on your arm if you throw it a whole lot. I also wanted something that looked like a fastball that wasn’t 84 mph. If I was throwing 92-94, I wanted it to be 88-90, and that’s what a cutter is. I asked Jon Lester how he threw his. He showed me his grip.

“I started using it as more of a count-control pitch. If fell behind 2-0, I could throw a cutter to a righty on the outside corner and run it off. I had a better chance of getting a swing on that, as opposed to a slider, which is an offspeed that they can see out of my hand. I developed a cutter for those situations and it evolved into one of my out pitches. I started throwing it to both sides of the plate.

“I think the cutter is the best pitch in baseball, as far as the stats go. Actually, I know that for a fact. [Red Sox director of pitching analysis and development] Brian Bannister and I were talking about that awhile ago — the numbers on guys who throw cutters. It’s the best pitch in baseball, in front of the split. Hard-sinking changeups are the third-best pitch. A four-seam fastball is the worst pitch as far as hard contact and batting average on balls put into play.”

More on Bannister's impact on him:
"On Brian Bannister and high fastballs: “He has [impacted how I think about pitching]. He’s really good at what he does, and he’s really easy to talk to. Yeah, throwing pitches in certain situations, versus throwing pitches just because you don’t want to throw another fastball: that’s how I’ve gotten in trouble a lot in my career. I would throw a changeup because I already threw two fastballs and didn’t want to throw another one.

“If I can throw a curveball for a strike, and then throw a curveball for a ball, then elevate a four-seam fastball, I’m going to get a lot more swings and misses on the high fastball. Not just concentrating on down, down, down is one of the things we’ve sat down and talked about in depth.

“Up until this year, I’ve never really intentionally thrown fastballs up in the zone. I’ve started doing that, and whenever I execute, it works out. Above the zone, above the belt, or maybe belly-button high at the top of the zone.

“The game has evolved. When I got called up, a lot of guys were high-ball hitters. They would take that pitch and hit it out. You were taught to throw the ball down, down, down. Now everybody is worried about their bat path and how they can get that ball going down and lift it. There are a lot more low-ball hitters in the game today than there were 10 years ago.”

He knows the cutter isn't perfect though:

“I throw multiple pitches, and some days my best pitch could be the opposite of what it was the start prior to that. At times, I’ve relied on a couple of pitches too much. I’ve relied on the cutter a lot. Whenever I have a good one, it’s good, but when it’s a ball that’s just spinning, it’s not. It’s a learning process, still."
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,564
http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0570442013447559340-4

It was actually Red Sox hitting coach Chili Davis who suggested that Clay Buchholz pitch out of the stretch even with the bases empty. "He says that from a hitter's perspective and watching from the side, throwing out of the stretch, he felt like the ball got on guys a little bit quicker than it did when I had a high leg kick and they're able to time it," Buchholz said. "That's when I said, all right, regardless I'm going to throw out of the stretch."''
Pitching and hitting coach FTW!