Well, that extra year is a little more then I'd of been open to spending on Reddick anyway.
This needs to be his year. He'll be 25 in early April and he had his development set back a ton by being jerked around and injury.
I'm sure he's in the mix, at least as a shuttle guy. Though these two adds to the 40-man are more about protecting Rule V eligible guys than what their role in 2017 is expected to be.
Why not Ysla (or Jerez)? For LHP RP we have a guy who seems to be trustworthy in Robbie Ross II, someone who scares us in Abad, someone we might have hope for in Robby Scott, and then 4 SPs who may end up in pen roles (Pom, ERod, Elias, Owens). Even if you only carry Ross as a RP, for a backup you have to hope Abad is not so terrible, hope that Scott can actually be an MLBer, and hope that someone in that SP group can make the transition. They have to be hoping that one of Ysla or Jerez can put in a good enough start in AAA to consider a bus ride if Ross (or anyone) goes down for a time.
First of all, if you're going to continue to be a one note poster, take the time to spell the guy's name right. It's Buchholz, and always has been.
Andrew Cashner was a worse pitcher than Clay last year. He was also worse in 2015, and 2013. He has pitched a few more innings over the past 4 years, but he has only been better than Clay one year. I can understand wanting totaking a chance on Cashner. What I can not understand is not wanting to take a similar chance on Buchholz? Is is the 3 million dollar difference that is the deal breaker?
There has been speculation in the media that they might move him (apologies, don't have time to find a link at the moment). I agree it seems dumb, but I think the rationale that most who have proposed use is that he takes up a very large chunk of a small payroll and they could presumably recoup 80-90% of the prospect value they spent to acquire him.
This is a guy I'd sniff around on, if the price is reasonable (laugh and walk away if they ask for Moncada.) Very good chance his down year was injury/luck (little of column A, little of column B) related, and although he's not an ace, he's still a very good pitcher that would increase depth and flexibility with our rotation, and would slot in perfectly behind Cy and Price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
Right, and I have a hunch (based on the usual nothing) that they aren't actually planning to sell low. I suspect they will put out the rumors, then wait and see if a market for Gray gets heated up. So if he can be had, it probably won't be for anyone we could stomach trading, unless we were sure he would resume his old form (also not possible).
I agree with this. I think because of the dearth of quality starting pitching on the free agent market (and what is there is going fast), we're going to be seeing and hearing all kinds of names being floated on the trade rumor mill. Some of it will be teams tossing their guy's name out there to see what kind of bites they can get, and some of it (like all the talk out of Atlanta this week) will essentially be GMs cold-calling about pitcher X and pitcher Y just to see if they can shake something loose...perhaps pitcher Z.
They're not going to sell low. They'd be better off hanging on to him, letting him bounce back in the first half and then putting him back on the market.
So they want to sell on him before people realize he's not an ace so they can get the best return possible and the way they are going to do that is by selling low? Right...
While I'm in total agreement that picking up Buchholz's option is probably going to play out to be a huge off season blunder, you are reaching pretty hard there imo on what type of ideal replacement should of been targeted in the event DD went down that road. Our 2017 rotation essentially already has two "upside" guys slated in behind Price/Porcello. Three if we wanted to save ourselves the $13m and simply project Wright as our 5th guy going into the winter.
How is that relevant? You are arguing that in order to move him while his value is still up, they might sell low. It's nonsensical. They are either selling him as the guy he appeared to be before 2016 or they are selling low. They literally can't do both.
If 2017 is a repeat of 2016, will his value go down, go up, or stay the same?
This has absolutely no relevance to this:
Your position is that they want to sell on him while teams still think he might be the guy he was before 2016, and that they would try to do that by selling low. These two things are antithetical. They cannot exist in the same deal. Whether his value might go down further with another shitty season could not be less relevant.
Sounds a lot like how JD Martinez was viewed by the Houston Astros after 2013. Or what the Pirates and Phillies though about Brandon Moss.
Even Brandon Moss made a top 100 list though and JD played 55 games in the majors at age 23 so they aren't really comparable either. Even if Travis Shaw ends up as JD Martinez, he still wasn't a comparable prospect to any of these guys. He's already better than WMB so he has that going for him.
First and foremost, my bad for spelling Buchholz wrong. It happens, it's easy to do, but if I can spell Saltalamacchia I should be able to spell Buchholz.
The biggest reason to pick up Clay's option is that it keeps his wife around. If they trade for Verlander they can deal Clay and it would still be a net positive around the ballpark.
You aren't getting Verlander for Eduardo straight up, never mind Verlander plus cash. That's crazy talk.
That, and the notion that rumors of a player being "available" automatically means that the team is actively and eagerly shopping the player for salary relief rather than simply listening to offers and *maybe* would consider making a deal for the right return.
Does the presidential election make this type of stuff on the main board acceptable now?
I agree with this, but the Sox aren't eager to get rid of E-Rod, either, right? Granted, he's not in Verlander's class (right now), but he still has a fair amount of cheap, young, controllable upside. What would trading Rodriguez alone be expected to bring back in this sellers' market for SPs?
6.0
But those past two years fit in with a normal aging pattern, now all of a sudden age 33 looks like age 26.
While I don't disagree, in all fairness that general guideline can be subject to a few different surrounding factors as well. Tier of player quality being most important imo, but also contract length, time of year, ect.
2014: had core surgery in January and shoulder soreness in August.
The problem with this continuing line of thought being that such a cost in most cases is all but assured to be outrageous. At least in a sense that it was fairly predictable even before he made that decision to pick up Buchholz's option.
