Buchholz Traded To Philly For 2B/DH Josh Tobias

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,120
Brooklyn
I think it was partly because the potential was there for him to be an elite pitcher, and partly because he pitched SO slowly, especially with guys on base, he was brutal to watch.
That and due to the fact that the 15 WAR thing says everything about his inconsistency: 60% of that value was from 3 seasons out of his 9, and in just one of those three seasons did he pitch over 113 innings. The problem is the season is inclusive of the 162 game schedule, and the postseason, and in more than half of his seasons he had an fWAR of under 1. Beyond those three WAR-good seasons, in his other six seasons he compiled a grand total of 4.6 WAR, which is what the much-maligned Price put up over this past season.
 

CPT Neuron

Got Pitching?
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2001
3,515
Biddeford, ME
Fun fact: The pick we used to get Buchholz came as a result of the Mets signing away Pedro Martinez.

Funner fact: I had forgotten that upon Clay's call-up, Tito had told reporters, "It doesn't matter if he throws a no-hitter, he's going back down." And then in his second start...


(anyone got a longer GIF of Pedroia's reaction to his play in the 7th?)
I was at this game, I'll remember for it for a few reasons....the no-hitter, Pedroia's play, and having a wonderful conversation with Mrs. Pedroia with me kids about ME as we walked out long after the game ended - amazing game....amazing talent, and, all in all, a quality player for a long time despite some maddening tendencies.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
That and due to the fact that the 15 WAR thing says everything about his inconsistency: 60% of that value was from 3 seasons out of his 9, and in just one of those three seasons did he pitch over 113 innings. The problem is the season is inclusive of the 162 game schedule, and the postseason, and in more than half of his seasons he had an fWAR of under 1. Beyond those three WAR-good seasons, in his other six seasons he compiled a grand total of 4.6 WAR, which is what the much-maligned Price put up over this past season.
I think we all understand the inconsistency issues. But given the cumulative valuation, I maintain that it's unfortunate the fanbase harbors such resentment (or at best, indifference) for a guy who was (by value) better than, for example, Tim Wakefield (nothing against Wakefield, of course).

He provided double value for the Red Sox (every dollar spent on him provided 2 in FA value), never seemed to "ask out" of playing (2013 WS4, went to the bullpen this year), was reported as a good clubhouse guy, participated in Boston charities, yadda yadda yadda. Yet some folks just absolutely *hate* him as if him pitching (or getting injured) was a personal affront to them.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
One reason waiting may be better would be you could choose what team he'd be on in August/September/October, plus other pitchers would be hurt and you could obtain leverage. That said, you and others are right about the Buch risk for injury.
Not sure how they choose what team he's on in August/September/October without holding on to him until late July. Not sure how they get anything at all for him if he's been buried in the bullpen for the first four months of the season (thus having no value as a starter).

And if he's not buried in the bullpen, that would mean he's contributing to the team in some meaningful way (as a starter or a reliever) and they wouldn't really want to deal him at all.

There's zero way to clear his salary off the books and control who he is pitching for in the second half next season.
 

PudgeFIST

New Member
Aug 19, 2016
39
I know that few people think this is a precursor to an EE signing,
But with Swihart(with options) and Holt around for OF depth, moving Young and his 6.5mil and asking Moreland if he'd accept a trade would sure get them close.

If they are projecting a 3+ year window of dominance, I'd rather it be with EE if they can get under.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Color me a little surprised they're going into 2017 with 4 LHS's...no option for a Clay/Pomeranz switch.

(Now I'll check the pitching thread where this has probably been mentioned 100 times).

I'll miss Ms. Clay.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I think we all understand the inconsistency issues. But given the cumulative valuation, I maintain that it's unfortunate the fanbase harbors such resentment (or at best, indifference) for a guy who was (by value) better than, for example, Tim Wakefield (nothing against Wakefield, of course).

He provided double value for the Red Sox (every dollar spent on him provided 2 in FA value), never seemed to "ask out" of playing (2013 WS4, went to the bullpen this year), was reported as a good clubhouse guy, participated in Boston charities, yadda yadda yadda. Yet some folks just absolutely *hate* him as if him pitching (or getting injured) was a personal affront to them.

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.
 

AMS25

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 29, 2008
3,122
Holland on the Plains
I'll miss Clay, but I won't miss him throwing to first base a zillion times with a man on first. Innings could last a LONG LONG time with Clay on the mound.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
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.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,763
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.
More to the point, it seems the FO either agreed with you or rates Tobias really highly; given what Garcia traded for, the Clay who showed up at the end of last year, if consistent, is worth far more than a potential utility guy in A ball.
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,232
Charlottesville, Virginia
Can we all agree now that in hindsight it wasn't worth picking up his option? I understand at the time we didn't know Sale was happening, but Clay doesn't have a whole lot of value.
I'm not sure this is right. He was worth what he is paid to the Phillies plus the "utility player ceiling" prospect. Buchholz at age 34 for this price is a gamble that the Phillies were willing to take. His option was picked up almost as insurance before the Sale trade was close to a reality. If Sale went elsewhere, the Sox would need him. As it is, Sale is a huge upgrade over Buchholz at a bargain price. If you view this as Buchholz at his expiring salary plus Moncada, Kopech, Basabe and Diaz for Sale at his salary for 3 years plus Tobias, the Sox are still better now and likely for at least the next 3 years.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
More to the point, it seems the FO either agreed with you or rates Tobias really highly; given what Garcia traded for, the Clay who showed up at the end of last year, if consistent, is worth far more than a potential utility guy in A ball.
Six controllable years at least of a guy in A- ball versus one expensive year of Clay. There's a market for Clay at his best, but it's not like he was on a four-year, $20 mil deal. He's racked up 1.1 bWAR in the last three seasons. So the Phillies traded for the right to probably overpay him and then lose him in free agency, unless he's great and they can flip him for prospects.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
More to the point, it seems the FO either agreed with you or rates Tobias really highly; given what Garcia traded for, the Clay who showed up at the end of last year, if consistent, is worth far more than a potential utility guy in A ball.
Tobias is a throw-in. The main part of the deal is Buchholz for $13.5M ow wriggle room
 
Last edited:

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Six controllable years at least of a guy in A- ball versus one expensive year of Clay. There's a market for Clay at his best, but it's not like he was on a four-year, $20 mil deal. He's racked up 1.1 bWAR in the last three seasons. So the Phillies traded for the right to probably overpay him and then lose him in free agency, unless he's great and they can flip him for prospects.
Tobias is little more than organizational filler. Buchholz will be worth more than that at the deadline if he's healthy and even modestly effective -- he doesn't need to be anything close to great for this to be a terrific deal for the Phillies. As for the Sox, this is a pure cost-cutting move -- Tobias is too unlikely to stick in the big leagues for the notion of six years of cost control to be a material part of the analysis.

Edit: Or, what E5 said.
 

sheamonu

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2004
1,342
Dublin, Ireland
Speaking as someone living in Ireland Clay was like the weather here - when it's good it's great, but it's so unpredictable as to when it'll be good that you can't plan anything. Want to go to the beach next weekend? Good luck with that when there's always a 50% chance you'll be able to see your breath (even though it's f-ing mid-July). I enjoyed the hell out if those amazing summer days when the grass was green and the curveballs snapped batters necks. But I was always aware that the next day I might step out the door and sink up to my dick in mud. Makes it tough to plan a picnic, or a rotation. (If you can't tell the weather sucks here right now, feckin' rain...)
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Law's take:


The Red Sox primarily get salary relief here, as there was no place for Buchholz on their staff for 2017. Infielder Josh Tobias is a fringy prospect but better than a mere organizational player -- that is, there’s a chance he’ll end up appearing in the big leagues and having a little value.

Tobias was one of the best college seniors available in the 2015 draft class, and he played well in his pro debut, but was sent to Low-A Lakewood as a 23-year-old to start 2016 because one of the Phillies’ top prospects, Scott Kingery, plays the same position and began the season in High-A Clearwater. Tobias has some bat speed and strong enough hands to hit for modest power, maybe 10-12 homers in a full season, with a high contact rate. He’s no longer much of a runner and, although he played mostly second base in the Phillies’ system, if he stays on the dirt at all it’ll likely be back at third base, where he played most of his games while at the University of Florida. I think there’s enough ability to hit here to get Tobias to the big leagues, although it’s likely as a bench option or an up-and-down guy.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
I know this isn't a super popular opinion but I really disliked Buchholz as a player and have for several years. He's hurt frequently, and even when healthy doesn't go deep in games. His compulsive obsession with throwing to first made him the hardest to watch pitcher, regardless of success, since Matsuzaka. His talent was never questioned for me, but his fragility inconsistency and inability to just pitch without throwing to first 100 times makes this deal overdue for me.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
Tobias is little more than organizational filler. Buchholz will be worth more than that at the deadline if he's healthy and even modestly effective -- he doesn't need to be anything close to great for this to be a terrific deal for the Phillies. As for the Sox, this is a pure cost-cutting move -- Tobias is too unlikely to stick in the big leagues for the notion of six years of cost control to be a material part of the analysis.

Edit: Or, what E5 said.
So they traded for the new Sean Coyle? Maybe this one can hit at AAA.

Local papers think Buchholz is just being acquired to be flipped.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
914
The Phillies rotation has a chance of being pretty good:

Jeremy Hellickson
Buchholz
Jerad Eickhoff
Vince Velasquez
Aaron Nola
 

Moosbrugger

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
348
wrong side of the bay
Buchholz is a veteran in a walk year. A person, not a piece in a board game. He's earned the right to maximize his earnings as a starting pitcher, not as a long relief/ swing man. It's good business and also the right thing to do to allow him to try to realize that. I apologize if someone posted this already but I wasn't clever enough to find that post.
 

Flunky

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2009
1,918
CT
He sucked in the years the team sucked. Tends to make people form opinions. Hope he deals in the NL but he won't be particularly missed at this point. Be glad he gave the team something instead of being Phil Hughes.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
I guess I'm a Buchholz fan based on my first impression, his no-hitter. I was in Korea at the time and that game was a rare opportunity to watch on TV. What an awesome surprise that it ended up being an historic game. Because he provided a moment of joy while I was 10 times zones away from home, I never let his squirrelly aspects phase me.

That being said, I totally get why some fans didn't like him ... he doesn't come across as the brightest bulb in the bulb box ... he can be maddeningly slow ... and those throws to first base, well let's say they aren't what one expects from a professional pitcher. However, I do take umbrage with those haters who held it against him that he didn't fulfill the lofty expectations of that no-hit performance. Baseball is hard, and being injury prone is not a character fault.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
He sucked in the years the team sucked. Tends to make people form opinions. Hope he deals in the NL but he won't be particularly missed at this point. Be glad he gave the team something instead of being Phil Hughes.
Phil Hughes has thrown 37 more innings, won 3 more games, with an identical xFIP, a 0.07 higher FIP, a significantly lower SIERA, and a much higher K/BB over their careers.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
He sucked in the years the team sucked. Tends to make people form opinions. Hope he deals in the NL but he won't be particularly missed at this point. Be glad he gave the team something instead of being Phil Hughes.
Seems like a lot of the Clay bellyaching is about people wanting to have been more entertained by the certain portions of the style of our former plus starter.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
I don't love trading away depth and the money for "in season flexibility" mantra DD trotted out yesterday, but I think the griping about losing pitching assurance is heavily colored by what I think may be the most comparable trade Bronson Arroyo.

The difference ?

Arroyo was under control for multiple years when he was unceremoniously dumped. He also was a 200ip given in contrast to Clay's Dr. Ace / Mr. injured Gopher Ball roller coaster Red Sox career.

I thank Clay for pitching injured to help us get the ring in 2013 and for what a pleasure he was to watch when he was on. His stuff is great when in a groove. I do think the NL and getting away from the East will help. I don't know how much fastball he has left. I also doubt he's going to bring back some type of haul at the trade deadline as a rental.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Sox fans seem to always need "that guy" - JD Drew, Buchholz... someone who's disliked for whatever reason. Who will it be next? Price seems like a good candidate.
Price is most definitely that guy now. He could go 30-1 next year with a microscopic era win 3 post season outings and the medidiots would still fuel the hate. Buchholz was disliked because as with JD Drew he wasn't a "dirt dog". He didn't show a ton of emotion on the field. That's why Victorino is beloved in this city despite only playing a couple of seasons here.

Difference between trading Clay and Bronson. Bronson as another poster mentioned was under control multiple years. But the team was really devoid of any other true pitchers to replace him on the back end. Owens and Johnson are still in the equation if someone goes down. And it's a 3 player race for two spots EdRo Wright and Pomeranz. Different scenario completely.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,246
I don't love trading away depth and the money for "in season flexibility" mantra DD trotted out yesterday, but I think the griping about losing pitching assurance is heavily colored by what I think may be the most comparable trade Bronson Arroyo.

The difference ?

Arroyo was under control for multiple years when he was unceremoniously dumped. He also was a 200ip given in contrast to Clay's Dr. Ace / Mr. injured Gopher Ball roller coaster Red Sox career.
Aside from their age differences, the big difference IMO is that the Red Sox *thought* they were getting a useful return in Pena. At the time RHH power was in very short supply. And in 2006, he was a useful RH bat (490 slg/110OPS+). But only for that year. And they obviously could have used the pitching.

Here, the Sox dont harbor any illusions about the player they got in return.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I'll certainly never get the Buchholz hate; Cafardo would lose whatever small amounts of intelligence he possessed whenever he mentioned Clay and "his need to learn to play through it" nonsense.

The bottom line is that DD has gone all in with Price-Porcello-Sale at the top of the rotation, and has better/cheaper option for the back end. Buchholz was essentially mediocre or worse 2 of the past 3 seasons, and in the one good one he was hurt most of it. Return was disappointing, but I tend to agree that there's no guarantee he would have gotten a better return later on. Given his age, recent inconsitency, and injury history, he's more of a $13M lottery ticket at this point in his career, and I'm OK with the Sox deciding they didn't need to scratch that ticket this year.

And, if 2 of Price/Porcello/Sale get hurt and miss significant time, the team is likely screwed anyway, Buchholz or no.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
There was widespread distaste for him that didn't jive with his career stats.
Only if you look at his career stats in aggregate, ignoring the season by season volatility. Sure, he generally sucked in years the team sucked but he was part of that suck. He also got hurt in years the team was doing well, forcing trades on the FO that cost meaningful prospects.

I don't hold any antipathy towards Clay. I think he tried his hardest to contribute to the Red Sox success on the field while he was here, he did so under relatively friendly financial terms, and he had moments of absolute brilliance. But I don't hold him in any particularly high regard simply for those efforts and brief flashes. For all his prospect hype he was only the third most productive pitcher from that period of allegedly great pitching depth to come through the Red Sox farm in the early to mid 2000's (behind both Jon Lester and Anibal Sanchez, marginally ahead of Justin Masterson).

Buchholz isn't JD Drew, a player who actually performed quite well for the club after his first year of mediocrity. He is Clay Buccholz and there hasn't been anyone else like him in Red Sox history that I can recall. He's absolutely unique and I'd have a hard time claiming any non-extreme opinions of him as invalid. What it does is give us a clear break on whether we as individuals value peak performance over consistency, flashes of greatness over sustainable mediocrity (MLB level mediocrity though, which itself is incredibly scarce and valuable). Both have their place in the debate on how to build a better ball club, Clay Bucholz is just a catalyst for individual reactions along those lines.

As for the trade, he's clearly not as valuable as the six guys ahead of him on the rotation. They picked up his contract as insurance for not getting someone like Sale. They got Sale, they don't need him, and they found a team willing to take him in exchange for something slightly better than mL filler. It makes baseball sense for all parties involved, not the least of which Clay himself getting to continue as a starter instead of having his walk year torpedoed by jumping back and forth between long relief and starting depending on injuries (others and his own) and performance (others and his own). It was, in basically all ways, the right move for DD to make.