Melancon Dominating AAA

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    Well no GM worth a fraction of his paycheck would make such a trade

    That's our biggest problem - we have too many #3 staters in this rotation

    I'd rather have two #1's and three #4's.......than five #3's........

    If you are counting Lester, Beckett and Buch as #3 starters, you need to take a closer look at MLB.  Here, I'll do the research for you, and remember, Sox pitchers get no breaks for home park and strength of schedule as some pitchers on other AL teams do:

    2009-2011
    Out of the 70 top starters by IP (220+) in the AL (14 teams times 5 starters per team):

    WHIP:
    T12) Beckett  1.21  (A clear AL number 1 starter comparatively speaking)
    T12) Lester    1.21  (A clear AL number 1 starter)
    T23) Buch      1.27 (A clear AL number 2 starter)

    ERA:
    6) Buch        3.10 (A clear AL #1 starter comparatively speaking)
    11) Lester     3.37 (A clear #1 starter in the AL)
    26) Beckett   3.97 (A clear #2 starter by ERA in the AL)

    xFIP:
    4) Lester   3.29 (A top AL #1 starter in this category)
    10) Beck   3.54 (A #1 AL starter again)
    33) Buch  4.11  (A top #3 starter in this category)

    If you take all of these respected categories together and make a composite, it is clear that Lester, Beckett and Buchholtz have been  #1 or at worst top #2 starters in the AL over the past 3 years.

    Our real issue is that we do not have quality #4 and 5 starters, and this year, our pen has suffered greatly by losing Papelbon and moving Bard to the rotation followed by the injury to Bailey and rough start by Melancon and others.

    There is no team in the AL from 2009-2011 that has a better top 3 starters by these numbers than the Sox. 

    (Sidenote: 3 of the top starters on all of these category lists are now in the NL: Halladay, Greinke and Cliff Lee.)


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    You could argue that Beckett and Lester are #2's but I was being VERY generous by calling Buck a #3.......you need to focus more on how these guys look today vs what they did 3-4 years ago.........
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Melancon Dominating AAA:
    His line so far in six appearances: 6.2 IP, 4 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 11 K , 9.00 GO/AO , .167 BAA
    Posted by SpruceTrap87


    If we only had a few guys dominating major league pitching :)
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    You could argue that Beckett and Lester are #2's 

    Name the 14 AL starters you think are better than Beckett and Lester, and please, don't use 4-5 game short sample sizes as your foundation. The top 2 Sox starters are at worst, easily top #2 starters, not #3 starters as you called them.

    but I was being VERY generous by calling Buck a #3.......

    If you go by 2009-2011 numbers, he's clearly a #2 to top #3 starter in the AL.

    you need to focus more on how these guys look today vs what they did 3-4 years ago...

    I am totally aware of what these guys have done so far this year. I am not discounting their starts so far this year, but Beckett and Lester are traditional slow starters, and Buch is coming off an injury. I am not ready to claim his 5 game sample size this year is who he is and will be from here on out. 

    You need to focus on larger sample sizes.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    Why do you need to compare to other starters?  Makes no sense.  "Mom, Dad, I know I only got a C but Timmy got a C- so in comparison, I am way better"!!!!!
    Sorry Charlie.............Lester has had 6 starts.  If you think that is a "small sample size" then you I guess you don't fully understand sampling techniques. PS you ARE discounting what they have done this year.  You clearly ommited 2012 from your "research".
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    Spare me/us !!!!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA:
    You could argue that Beckett and Lester are #2's  Name the 14 AL starters you think are better than Beckett and Lester, and please, don't use 4-5 game short sample sizes as your foundation. The top 2 Sox starters are at worst, easily top #2 starters, not #3 starters as you called them. but I was being VERY generous by calling Buck a #3....... If you go by 2009-2011 numbers, he's clearly a #2 to top #3 starter in the AL. you need to focus more on how these guys look today vs what they did 3-4 years ago... I am totally aware of what these guys have done so far this year. I am not discounting their starts so far this year, but Beckett and Lester are traditional slow starters, and Buch is coming off an injury. I am not ready to claim his 5 game sample size this year is who he is and will be from here on out.  You need to focus on larger sample sizes.
    Posted by moonslav59


    moon, I think we still have three above average pitchers in Clay, Josh and Jon but nobody dominating enough to call an ace.   We also agree "its probably not enough" and it won't be easy to address it without losing value somewhere else.

    Hopefully we can turn this start around but help has to come from somewhere and I was pretty surprised and disappointed Cook didn't do better today.  It may take losing one of our best players to make this staff better. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    Why do you need to compare to other starters?  Makes no sense.  "Mom, Dad, I know I only got a C but Timmy got a C- so in comparison, I am way better"!!!!!

    When you said we had "too may #3 starters", I took you at your word. We can argue about the definition of what a #1, 2 or 3 slot pitcher is, but to me, I think it is fair to say that the top 14 AL starters could be considered a legitimate #1 starter. The 15-28th best AL starters are legitimate #2 slot starters...and so on...

    If you are trying to claim there are only 6 legitimate #1 AL starters and 6 legitmate #2 starters, then yes, calling Beckett, Lester and Buch #3 starters  could be defended.

    Sorry Charlie.............Lester has had 6 starts.  If you think that is a "small sample size" then you I guess you don't fully understand sampling techniques. 

    Yes, 6 starts is a small sample size, but not something that should be totally discounted, but if you look at Lester's history, he usually starts off slowly...

    ERAon 4/17   5/4  Final ERA
    '12       6.00   4.62        ?
    '11       3.72   2.33       3.47
    '10       8.44   3.93       3.25
    '09       9.00   5.11       3.41
    '08       5.31   3.94       3.21

    Are you really so sure Lester is what he currently appears to be?

    PS you ARE discounting what they have done this year.  You clearly ommited 2012 from your "research".

    OK, let's include 2012:

    Last 3+ yrs or 2009-2012 (All AL starters with 240+ IP):

    WHIP:
    15) Beckett  1.21 (0.01 behind 12th place)
    T16) Lester  1.24 (Top #2 starter)
    T35) Buch    1.32 (Middle 3rd starter by the numbers)

    ERA
    11) Lester   3.45 (clearly in the #1 AL starter slot)
    13) Buch     3.53 (#1 slot by ERA)
    27) Beck      4.00 (ERA seems high, but comparatively speaking, he still fell in the #2 AL starter slot at #27 out of the top 70 AL starters by IP)

    xFIP
    4) Lester    3.35  (Looks like an ace in this category)
    9) Beckett  3.57  (Ahead of David Price, CJ Wilson, & J Weaver)
    38) Buch    4.18  (The only stat that shows any of these guys lower than a #2 slot AL starter comparatively speaking and including 2012. Still, he rates as a # slot here.)


    Last 2+ yrs or 2010-2012 (180+ IP):

    WHIP
    20)   Beck  1.23 (mid 2 slot)
    T22) Lest   1.24 (mid 2 slot)
    36)   Buch  1.30 ( mid 3 slot)

    ERA
    13) Buch    3.31 (low 1 slot)
    17) Lest     3.46  (high 2 slot)
    33) Beck   4.08  ( mid 3 slot)

    xFIP
    7) Lester   3.47 (mid 1 slot)
    20) Beck   3.73 ( mid 2 slot)
    46) Buch   4.23 (high 4 slot)

    If you average out the slot ratings, it comes out to this:
    15) Lester  = best #2 slot in AL
    17) Beckett = mid/high 2 slot
    32) Buchholtz = mid/high 3 slot

    Last 1+ years or 2011-2012 (110+ IP):

    WHIP:
    3) Beckett  1.05 (high 1 slot)
    29) Lester  1.27 (best 3 slot)
    56) Buch    1.45 (last 4 slot)

    ERA
    8) Beckett  3.12 (mid 1 slot)
    22) Lester  3.66 (mid 2 slot)
    54) Buch   4.84  (low 4 slot)

    xFIP 
    16) Beckett  3.66 (high 2 slot)
    21) Lester    3.72 (mid 2 slot)
    55) Buch     4.49 (low 4 slot)

    Since the start of 2011, Beckett is a clear #1 slot AL starter, Lester is a middle of the road 2 AL starter, and Buch has been a bottom 4 starter.

    There are certainly numbers to back up your claim that Buch is barely a 3 starter, but not to call Beckett and Lester 3 slot starters, unless you go only by 5 or 6 start sample sizes.


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA:
    Well no GM worth a fraction of his paycheck would make such a trade That's our biggest problem - we have too many #3 staters in this rotation I'd rather have two #1's and three #4's.......than five #3's........ If you are counting Lester, Beckett and Buch as #3 starters, you need to take a closer look at MLB.  Here, I'll do the research for you, and remember, Sox pitchers get no breaks for home park and strength of schedule as some pitchers on other AL teams do: 2009-2011 Out of the 70 top starters by IP (220+) in the AL (14 teams times 5 starters per team): WHIP: T12) Beckett  1.21  (A clear AL number 1 starter comparatively speaking) T12) Lester    1.21  (A clear AL number 1 starter) T23) Buch      1.27 (A clear AL number 2 starter) ERA: 6) Buch        3.10 (A clear AL #1 starter comparatively speaking) 11) Lester     3.37 (A clear #1 starter in the AL) 26) Beckett   3.97 (A clear #2 starter by ERA in the AL) xFIP: 4) Lester   3.29 (A top AL #1 starter in this category) 10) Beck   3.54 (A #1 AL starter again) 33) Buch  4.11  (A top  #3 starter in this category) If you take all of these respected categories together and make a composite, it is clear that Lester, Beckett and Buchholtz have been  #1 or at worst top #2 starters in the AL over the past 3 years. Our real issue is that we do not have quality #4 and 5 starters, and this year, our pen has suffered greatly by losing Papelbon and moving Bard to the rotation followed by the injury to Bailey and rough start by Melancon and others. There is no team in the AL from 2009-2011 that has a better top 3 starters by these numbers than the Sox.  (Sidenote: 3 of the top starters on all of these category lists are now in the NL: Halladay, Greinke and Cliff Lee.)
    Posted by moonslav59

    moon - You can't go back to 2009. You aren't including Hellickson, Moore, etc.
    Show me your analysis and include 2012, correct? Why omit this year, the most relevant year and come back to me with your numbers, okay?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    moon, I think we still have three above average pitchers in Clay, Josh and Jon but nobody dominating enough to call an ace.   We also agree "its probably not enough" and it won't be easy to address it without losing value somewhere else.

    The term "ace" is highly subjective. If you go by top 14 AL starters as "aces", then one could argue that Beckett and Lester squeek into the category based on a 3-4 year sample size, but if you want to call an ace someone who can pitch 220+ IP year in and year out, and can be counted on to be a top starter in 75+% of the seasons he pitches, then we have none.

    Hopefully we can turn this start around but help has to come from somewhere and I was pretty surprised and disappointed Cook didn't do better today.  It may take losing one of our best players to make this staff better. 

    I am confident that Beckett and Lester can pitch sub 3.00 baseball from here on out, but counting on Buch to be close to an ace is wishful thinking. I do think he can pitch like a good 2/3 starter. I think he is more likely to pitch like a 3 starter than a low 4 starter from here on out, and I don't think I am being a "homer" for saying that. 

    After Buch, we are hurting. We have several long-shots and projects and converted good relievers, but as I have said all winter, to be close to a favorite to win it all, we need a good 3 slot type starter added to the mix (assuming Bard goes back to the pen).
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA:
    moon, I think we still have three above average pitchers in Clay, Josh and Jon but nobody dominating enough to call an ace.   We also agree "its probably not enough" and it won't be easy to address it without losing value somewhere else. The term "ace" is highly subjective. If you go by top 14 AL starters as "aces", then one could argue that Beckett and Lester squeek into the category based on a 3-4 year sample size, but if you want to call an ace someone who can pitch 220+ IP year in and year out, and can be counted on to be a top starter in 75+% of the seasons he pitches, then we have none. Hopefully we can turn this start around but help has to come from somewhere and I was pretty surprised and disappointed Cook didn't do better today.  It may take losing one of our best players to make this staff better.  I am confident that Beckett and Lester can pitch sub 3.00 baseball from here on out, but counting on Buch to be close to an ace is wishful thinking. I do think he can pitch like a good 2/3 starter. I think he is more likely to pitch like a 3 starter than a low 4 starter from here on out, and I don't think I am being a "homer" for saying that.  After Buch, we are hurting. We have several long-shots and projects and converted good relievers, but as I have said all winter, to be close to a favorite to win it all, we need a good 3 slot type starter added to the mix (assuming Bard goes back to the pen).
    Posted by moonslav59


    Really.   You aren't going to include Buck as the reason why we are in this quagmire?  I guess this debate is clearly ovah!!!!!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA:
    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA : Really.   You aren't going to include Buck as the reason why we are in this quagmire?  I guess this debate is clearly ovah!!!!!
    Posted by andrewmitch


    No kidding. Of ALL QUALIFIED pitchers in MLB, Clay Buchholz is dead last in 
    both ERA (8.69) and WHIP (1.90).
    Given those stats, Buchholz doesn't qualify as a #5. Lackey's numbers last year were great compared to what Buchholz has done so far. Stop the nonsense moon.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    Really.   You aren't going to include Buck as the reason why we are in this quagmire?  I guess this debate is clearly ovah!!!!!

    Why do you continue to put words in my mouth?

    I was pointing out that Buch has been a 2/3 slot pitcher over a 3-4 year sample size. I never said he has been pitching like one so gfar this year. I know he has stunk thus far, but looking forward, I am not assuming he will continue at an 8+ ERA, but rather I am assuming he gets back to sub 4.00 pitching from here on out and acts like a 3 starter. I could be terribly wrong, but I see more hope for this year in Buch as a starter than Bard or Cook or Dice or Doubront. 

    Yes, he has been a big reason we ar in this "quagmire", but that doesn't mean we should or must totally give up on him. What have we had given up on Lester after 3 starts last year? So, Buch has had 5. I'm willing to cut him some extra slack due to the fact that he's coming off a back injury. If you want to end the debate, because I have a little more faith than you, so be it.

    Peace.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    No kidding. Of ALL QUALIFIED pitchers in MLB, Clay Buchholz is dead last in 
    both ERA (8.69) and WHIP (1.90).
    Given those stats, Buchholz doesn't qualify as a #5. Lackey's numbers last year were great compared to what Buchholz has done so far. Stop the nonsense moon.

    The nonsense is you and other forming definitive judgements on a player based on a 29 IP sample size. His previous 350 IP must be thrown out the window, because he has stuggled as he has returned from a major injury. He's 27. He has stunk this year. Iam not saying otherwise. The point is, what is the liklihood that he pitches well, average, or poorly going forward. I don't think I am being absurd to expect him to return to the form of a 350 sample size vs a recent 29 IP sample size after having extended time away from the game.

    I don;t have supreme hope in Buch. That is one reason I ranted all winter about getting another top quality starter, just in case one of our top 3 didn't pitch well. I mentioned over and over that our top 3 have never had good seasons all at once. I'd say I was well aware of the possibilities that Buch or Beckett or Lester would stumble this year. I wanted us to try hard to get Floyd, or Wandy Rodriguez or the like. I still think we'd have a good shot had we done that, and kept Bard in the pen.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA:
    No kidding. Of ALL QUALIFIED pitchers in MLB, Clay Buchholz is dead last in  both ERA (8.69) and WHIP (1.90). Given those stats, Buchholz doesn't qualify as a #5. Lackey's numbers last year were great compared to what Buchholz has done so far. Stop the nonsense moon. The nonsense is you and other forming definitive judgements on a player based on a 29 IP sample size. His previous 350 IP must be thrown out the window, because he has stuggled as he has returned from a major injury. He's 27. He has stunk this year. Iam not saying otherwise. The point is, what is the liklihood that he pitches well, average, or poorly going forward. I don't think I am being absurd to expect him to return to the form of a 350 sample size vs a recent 29 IP sample size after having extended time away from the game. I don;t have supreme hope in Buch. That is one reason I ranted all winter about getting another top quality starter, just in case one of our top 3 didn't pitch well. I mentioned over and over that our top 3 have never had good seasons all at once. I'd say I was well aware of the possibilities that Buch or Beckett or Lester would stumble this year. I wanted us to try hard to get Floyd, or Wandy Rodriguez or the like. I still think we'd have a good shot had we done that, and kept Bard in the pen.
    Posted by moonslav59

    I'm not saying that. Show me his numbers from 2009-2012. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA:
    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA : I'm not saying that. Show me his numbers from 2009-2012. 
    Posted by ADG

    I did show you Buch's numbers from 2009-2012 (along with Beckett & Lester):

    Buch is number 13 out of 70 AL starters in ERA. That could be viewed as being a #1 slot pitcher in the AL comparatively speaking since there are 14 teams and he was #13.

    Buch was tied for #35 in WHIP and #38 in xFIP, which places him as a middle #3 slot AL starter (since #29-42 AL pitchers, in theory, are #3 slot starters).

    Combine all three of these stats, and one could easily argue that Buch has put up numbers from 2009 to 2012 that show him to be a solid number 2 starter or at worst a top #3 starter in the AL. (remember, 3 guys on these lists ahead of Buch are now in the NL: Halladay, CLee and Greinke.)

    Here are the actual Sox pitcher 2009-2012 numbers again (180+ IP):

    Lester        50-28  3.45  1.24
    Beckett      38-22  4.00  1.21
    Buchholtz  33-15  3.53  1.32
    Lackey       26-23  5.26  1.50
    Wake          22-22  5.18  1.42
    Dice-K        16-14  4.98  1.50


    Last 3+ yrs or 2009-2012 (All AL starters with 240+ IP):

    WHIP:
    15) Beckett  1.21 (0.01 behind 12th place)
    T16) Lester  1.24 (Top #2 starter)
    T35) Buch    1.32 (Middle 3rd starter by the numbers)

    ERA
    11) Lester   3.45 (clearly in the #1 AL starter slot)
    13) Buch     3.53 (#1 slot by ERA)
    27) Beck      4.00 (ERA seems high, but comparatively speaking, he still fell in the #2 AL starter slot at #27 out of the top 70 AL starters by IP)

    xFIP
    4) Lester    3.35  (Looks like an ace in this category)
    9) Beckett  3.57  (Ahead of David Price, CJ Wilson, & J Weaver)
    38) Buch    4.18  (The only stat that shows any of these guys lower than a #2 slot AL starter comparatively speaking and including 2012. Still, he rates as a # slot here.)
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    moon - You can't go back to 2009. You aren't including Hellickson, Moore, etc.
    Show me your analysis and include 2012, correct? Why omit this year, the most relevant year and come back to me with your numbers, okay?

    I did show you the numbers of the top 70 starters from:

    2009-2012
    2010-2012
    2011-2012

    All included 2012, and I went by whatever IP total brought the number who qualified to 70 starters, since there are 14 teams and 5 starters per team (14x5=70).

    I admit going back to 2009, includes guys like Halladay, C Lee and Greinke in the rankings, and excludes newer starters who do not have 240+ IP needed yet to make the list, but those are the results of all AL starters with enough IP to make the list equal 70. It's not a perfect methodology, but it seems as fair as anything else I can think of. I wouldn't call Hellickson on of the top 70 starters from 2009-2012 since he only pitched in about 35% of the sample time period and does not have a large enough sample size to judge by for this criteria.

    This is why I included 2010-2012 and 2011-2012. The 2011-2012 sample size shows Buch to be about #55 out of 70, making him a low #4 slot starter in the AL for this time period, but it does not reflect his previous success in the AL, so it too is a flawed methodology.

    Look, I am not saying Buch is a sure-fire #3 AL starter, but he has shown for an extended period of time, that he can be as high as a top #2 slot AL starter. For that reason, I label him a quality pitcher who is presently struggling mightily, as most quality pitchers do at some point in their career, especially during and after major injuries.

    I never said he was "top quality", and I guess the term "quality" might have a different meaning to you than to me, but I still think we have 5 to 7 quality pitchers on our staff: Beckett, Lester, Buch, Bard (as a reliever), Morales, and Aceves ( and maybe Bailey, who is on the DL right now).

    I'm sure we can all agree that that is not enough. Yes, I'd like to have 3 "top quality" pitchers on this staff instead of 0-2 (depending on your criteria), but it is very difficult to obtain a top pitcher. Instead, I think our best strategy going forward, is to increase our number of "quality" pitchers from 5 or 6 to 7 or 8 or even 9.

    I seriously doubt we can manefest a quality pitcher from within our system for this year, but I suppose it is possible one or two of these guys turn it on from here on out:
    Dice-K
    Doubront
    R Hill
    Mortensen
    Tazawa
    Melancon
    Cook
    Padilla
    Albers
    Atchison
    I'm not holding my breath on even one of these guys, and that is why I so strongly advocated for the trading of prospects for a quality starter like Gavin Floyd, Wandy Rodriguez or the like. It would have allowed Bard to stay in the pen (hopefully making him a "quality" pitcher once again). 

    If healthy, this would have been a decent staff to go along with our top 3 offense:

    S1) Beckett
    S2) Lester
    S3) Floyd
    S4) Buch
    S5) Doub (Dice-K in June)
    S6) Cook/Padilla/Mortensen (Doub after June)

    R1) Bailey
    R2) Bard
    R3) Aceves
    R4) Morales
    R5) R Hill
    R6) Albers 
    R7) Atchison
    R8) Melancon/Tazawa/Padilla/Cook/Mortensen/Thomas

    Even with Bailey and Hill out, we'd have been a lot better than we are now with Floyd as our #3 starter and Bard as our top set-up man. It's a chain reaction of improvements. It makes R Hill & Morales the 7th inning guys (not the8th) instead of Albers of Atchison. Albers and Atchison now are the 6th inning guys instead of Padilla or Cook... and on and on... By having Floyd as the #3, it makes Buch and Doub the 4/5, not the 3/4, and if Dice-K returns it would add Doubront or Buch to the pen as well.

    It may be too late now to do anything grand enough to change our course, but I suppose if R Hill and Dice-K can come back sharp, and Ells, Youk and CC return sooner than later, the maybe we can have a strong run like 2011 and get us back in the race by the deadline, and then make a strategic move to fill that gap in the staff and maybe a tweak on offense (RH'd power bat?)

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    " What's to lose?


    the game"

    LOL. I think what Kim is saying is that this team doesn't mind racking up losses so risking one more is no big deal....
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from walterjohnson07. Show walterjohnson07's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    So did Aaron Cook.  How'd that work out?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    If Melancon comes back and is adequate but the team waves the white flag I would trade him the first chance I got. Let us hope he comes back and does well and we do need him for the play-offs.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA:
    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA : No kidding. Of ALL QUALIFIED pitchers in MLB, Clay Buchholz is dead last in  both ERA (8.69) and WHIP (1.90). Given those stats, Buchholz doesn't qualify as a #5. Lackey's numbers last year were great compared to what Buchholz has done so far. Stop the nonsense moon.
    Posted by ADG


    Buchholz is coming of a serious back injury.  Did you honestly expect him to step right in where he left off?

    His last 2 starts have been encouraging in that he looked god for 5 innings.  In oth outings, he got crushed in the sixth, and that is probably related to the back problem as opposed to anything else...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FenwayChuck. Show FenwayChuck's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    OKAY, to the current discusssion on who we have that is a "quality or #1" starter...

    Let me ask this question:
    IF we decide to rebuild and cut all ties to the current team structure ( let us say next month).....
    Who here does not think that Lester would be a HOT commodity to the rest of MLB?  And Why not?
    Who here does not think Beckett would become a HOT commodity on the market- AGAIN WHY NOT?
    Who thinks Bucholz would not be sought after.... and again WHY NOT?

    I think if you all have a bit of integrity while you think your way through this discussion... you will come up with the real answer to the question of whether this team has quality starters.

    MY belief is should the sox put Lester on the Market at the deadline he WILL be one of the hottest commocities in the game.  He throws LH, He has defeinetly got #1 stuff ( throwing 95 at times). and he has some of the most dominating stuff in the league when he is on.... IS NE ON?  NOPE!  but he has no hit quality movement and power.... just that he has been unable to harness it.

    Beckett- IF you are ignorant enough to think any contender would not have interest in him at the deadline if we went into rebuild mode... then YOU ARE KIDDING YOURSELF..  Again... he has quality stuff... However I believe father time is reaching up and biting him in the backside (early)...  That does not mean that he is not a quality pitcher with the ability to be dominant at times.... ( SO again he is a #1 or 2)....
    Buchholz is theone who does not have the tack record to call a #1 or #1 in my book.  He has been overpowering at times... but due to injury they have not been consitent and long-running periods of dominance... so "IF" you were going to say one of them is not a top of the rotation pitcher this would be your man.  HOWEVER, in saying that one must realize that when completely healthy he has gone 5-6 game streaks with almost no mistakes.  He has the stuff... does he have the health?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA:
    OKAY, to the current discusssion on who we have that is a "quality or #1" starter... Let me ask this question: IF we decide to rebuild and cut all ties to the current team structure ( let us say next month)..... Who here does not think that Lester would be a HOT commodity to the rest of MLB?  And Why not? Who here does not think Beckett would become a HOT commodity on the market- AGAIN WHY NOT? Who thinks Bucholz would not be sought after.... and again WHY NOT? I think if you all have a bit of integrity while you think your way through this discussion... you will come up with the real answer to the question of whether this team has quality starters. MY belief is should the sox put Lester on the Market at the deadline he WILL be one of the hottest commocities in the game.  He throws LH, He has defeinetly got #1 stuff ( throwing 95 at times). and he has some of the most dominating stuff in the league when he is on.... IS NE ON?  NOPE!  but he has no hit quality movement and power.... just that he has been unable to harness it. Beckett- IF you are ignorant enough to think any contender would not have interest in him at the deadline if we went into rebuild mode... then YOU ARE KIDDING YOURSELF..  Again... he has quality stuff... However I believe father time is reaching up and biting him in the backside (early)...  That does not mean that he is not a quality pitcher with the ability to be dominant at times.... ( SO again he is a #1 or 2).... Buchholz is theone who does not have the tack record to call a #1 or #1 in my book.  He has been overpowering at times... but due to injury they have not been consitent and long-running periods of dominance... so "IF" you were going to say one of them is not a top of the rotation pitcher this would be your man.  HOWEVER, in saying that one must realize that when completely healthy he has gone 5-6 game streaks with almost no mistakes.  He has the stuff... does he have the health?
    Posted by FenwayChuck


    Hey Chuck, I think Clay, Josh and Lester would all draw attention but obviously Beckett would be the most difficult to move.   If Dice pitches decent enough and the Sox appear out of PS contention I would try and trade him to a contender for a prospect or two.  I would also dangle guys like Youk, Salty, Clay, CC, Beckett, Bard and a couple of prospects names to see whats out there for bites.   If nothing else it will send a signal to all these guys we are willing to do almost anything to improve our club. 

    I'm not a fan of trading Lester because I still think he is one of the best lefties in baseball and our most dependable pitcher.  I'm also not ready to trade Ells but would try and get a feel for what he and Boras's intensions may be.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA:
    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA : Buchholz is coming of a serious back injury.  Did you honestly expect him to step right in where he left off?

    Apparently, he did expect that. 

     His last 2 starts have been encouraging in that he looked god for 5 innings.  In oth outings, he got crushed in the sixth, and that is probably related to the back problem as opposed to anything else...

    Back injuries are tricky and can be long-lasting and/or devastating. The injury may have messed Buch's mechanics up permanently. We don't know. I'm certainly have some skepticism about Buch's return to his promising form of 2009-2011, but there is certainly no reason to think he can not do it.

    Yes, he did look better recently. I'm not criticizing BV for not taking him out after 5, but had he done that, maybe this thread would never have morphed into a Buch bash. 
    Posted by notin


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Melancon Dominating AAA

    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA:
    In Response to Re: Melancon Dominating AAA :
    Posted by moonslav59
    Buchholz obviously lost his rhythm in those games, as Valentine observed. The pitcher said his back felt fine. Nonetheless, his strength might have faded a bit because he's still working his way back to top pitching shape. Residue from the back injury might or might not, directly or indirectly, have affected his performance after five innings. He needs more starts to test his endurance. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share