Is it possible to make a distinction on reasons for disliking Clay?
I've been pretty vocal about being in the anti group, but I don't *hate* him. I don't take anything from his performance or injuries as a personal affront and I don't wish him any harm personally or professionally going forward. I recognize his contributions for what they were.
That being said, I did, however, get tired of the constant injury/suckage cycle we saw for his entire career. I also have thought for years that counting on him for anything heading into a season was a mistake and I'm pretty sure that it always proved to be one.
He ended up pitching well in the bullpen towards the end of the season, but that was only after his manager publicly stated that he was in limbo and couldn't be trusted with anything mop up duty. That he made changes with Bannister and became effective, I applaud him for and give full credit. I do not, however, buy the concept that those were permanent fixes and he should have been counted on to be a part of the rotation, certainly not at the expense of any of the other starters. Even if they prove to be, that's completely ignoring the injury part of the equation.
I, personally, am glad they moved him and am not in the least surprised that he was the one to go. Others aren't happy about it. And that's all well and good, but the incredulity goes both ways.
I get some of the frustrations that surround Buchholz, and none of this means the trade of Buchholz was ill-sighted (if anything, I noted that there was an impending major league roster crunch in the Sale thread), but statistics generally bear out the bold to be incorrect.
Clay Buchholz provided worthwhile value during his tenure with the Red Sox. Yes, he was injured in some of those seasons (necessitating a replacement, who, by definition, is generally replacement level), but I'm hard-pressed to point to a specific season where Buchholz's injuries cost the team dearly (possibly 2011?). Who was he blocking? What FAs willing to pitch for <$10m did the Sox pass up on that would have been significantly better? While this board loved to put forth the "200 IP workhorse!!1" instead, for Buchholz's salary you weren't getting a top-of-the-rotation arm -- and at that point 200 IP of 2 WAR is still less than 100 IP of 3 WAR + 100 IP of 0 WAR.
We know who Buchholz was -- a highly-touted prospect that never lived up to the lofty expectations but provided bursts of extraordinary value. I'm not sure what else Buchholz was supposed to be. Was he supposed to be healthier, but not as good by rate basis? Or Kershaw-esque during the seasons he broke down? Better AND healthier? (man, if only we could have fixed Mark Prior...)
The Red Sox have historically had players that were lauded by fans for providing less value than Buchholz did who has been subject to, at the very least skepticism, and at the most derision, by the same fan base. Of course, the nature of fandom is it is not necessarily rational, but I don't think many understand that Clay's roster presence was more helpful to the Red Sox end-of-season records than many, many other players over the last decade.