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

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]

    Theo Chicks, as Moonslav points out rush to rewrite history and are likely also Bush apologists too. Why do I say that? Bush apologists put GW Bush's feelings and ego over the fate of the country. Theo Chicks couldn't care less if the Sox lose 120 games, as long as Theo is smirking, winking and smiling.

    Unacceptable.

    [/Quote]



    Your rhetoric needs a lot to be desired. In fact, your arguments will surely crumble under inspection. Keep practicing.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tc25. Show tc25's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    law, hey moron maybe the deal with santana wasn't done because John Henry didn't want to spend 20 million on a pitcher named Santana maybe Theo wanted to do the deal

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Theo seems to have done alright evaluating young talent. If the FO thinks that Buch has high value, I see no reason to doubt the assessment. It's some of the veteran players that have been brought in that have struggled, or at least not produced as expected. In the post season last year, it was the pitching that let them down.

    Last year, they did OK with no offesnive production from the catcher and spotty production from the SS and CF. The have bascially the same make up in the field this year with a much better pitching staff, particularly the BP.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from joeyama99. Show joeyama99's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    If you want to know why the organization values Buchholz so much, then go back to '07 when he was rated at the same level as other elite prospects such as Evan Longoria, Jay Bruce, and Joba Chamberlain -- potential superstars! His stats of 2.44 ERA 171Ks in 125 innings (That's over 12K's per 9 innings) that year in Double A/Triple A at age 22 are a good indicator of success. He was also the Sox 2 time Minor League Pitcher of the year!

    Sure not every top prospect pans out. But for every bust there's probably a young pitcher with a power arm who struggles initially in the majors, that later blossoms into a top starter. If you're gonna trade him, then wait until he gets his value back and use him as a center piece in a deal for a Mauer or Fielder. Don't trade him now for a lesser prospect like Saltalamacchia. If you give up on him now, then you're giving up on a pitcher with less than 100 innings in the majors. It's similar to Jon Lester, who many fans preferred to trade for relief help instead of Kason Gabbard. Where would the Sox be now without Lester as their #2! Patience is the key with young players, especially pitchers.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]If you want to know why the organization values Buchholz so much, then go back to '07 when he was rated at the same level as other elite prospects such as Evan Longoria, Jay Bruce, and Joba Chamberlain -- potential superstars! His stats of 2.44 ERA 171Ks in 125 innings (That's over 12K's per 9 innings) that year in Double A/Triple A at age 22 are a good indicator of success. He was also the Sox 2 time Minor League Pitcher of the year!

    Sure not every top prospect pans out. But for every bust there's probably a young pitcher with a power arm who struggles initially in the majors, that later blossoms into a top starter. If you're gonna trade him, then wait until he gets his value back and use him as a center piece in a deal for a Mauer or Fielder. Don't trade him now for a lesser prospect like Saltalamacchia. If you give up on him now, then you're giving up on a pitcher with less than 100 innings in the majors. It's similar to Jon Lester, who many fans preferred to trade for relief help instead of Kason Gabbard. Where would the Sox be now without Lester as their #2! Patience is the key with young players, especially pitchers.[/Quote]

    Entering the 2007 season, Baseball America ranked Clay Buchholz 51st on its annual list of Top 100 prospects. Evan Longoria was ranked 7th and Jay Bruce 14th, while 19 pitchers ranked ahead of Buchholz. Jarrod Saltalamacchia ranked 36th (and 18th the previous year).

    In the 2008 Baseball America rankings, Buchholz ranked fourth behind the younger Bruce, Longoria and Joba Chamberlain. Buchholz occupied the same slot held the previous year by the younger Philip Hughes.

    The 24-year-old Buchholz did nothing to enhance his value in 2008. I don't think Clay Buchholz is going anywhere because the Red Sox are unlikely to trade him with his diminished trade value and another team is unlikely to trade much of value for him because of the red flags raised by his 2008 performance.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from joeyama99. Show joeyama99's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Thanks for the Baseball America rankings info. It shows that it was not long ago, that Buchholz was thought of in the same way as Longoria, Bruce, and Chamberlain.

    I don't think other teams see red flags though, rather an opportunity to acquire a young pitcher with top-of-the rotation potential. (technically, Buchholz is not a prospect since he's no longer considered a rookie, I believe.) That's why his name keeps coming up in trade rumors. For example, Texas offering one of their young catchers. Red Sox don't see these offers as good trades, since they'd be selling low. I'd have to agree.

    I think the only catching prospect they'd trade Buchholz for is Baltimore's Matt Wieters, but that's not going to happen. At least not now.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Trade him now, while his appeal is still high.
    I think he's worth more than Salty though, so
    don't give him away.
    Building a great farm system is Theo's crowning jewel, but a great farm system has 2 purposes:
    1) to bring in low budget contributors to the ML roster at a constant rate
    2) provide chips to bargain with to gain top rated players via trades
    Theo seems to concentrate too much on #1, unless the kid is a Dan D. kid (Hanley Ramirez).
    I think he loves his kids too much. I love em too, but sometimes you have to pull the trigger, when a blue chipper comes available (Santana). Go SOX!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgr01002. Show dgr01002's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]

    Buchholz threw that no no against one of the worst Baltimore teams in history, just trying to get to the offseason, far out of contention. Buchholz didn't work hard over the extended offseason he had, thought the no no proved he was a star at this level and got ROCKED back to earth in 2008. That's not going to turn around any time soon. He doesn't have the mettle.
    Quote]

    Dude, if this was the case then no-hitters against any team would just be commonplace every year, right about...August or Setember. Weak logic here. How many pitchers in baseball have no-hitters in their entire careers? Schilling and Clemens have pitched against basement teams in August and I'm pretty sure they have none or very few if I'm wrong. It's a stupid argument to make. A no-hitter is rare period.

    You need to get over Bucholz. It's disturbing. As in stalker outside his home disturbing. He's a prospect, meaning, not on the Sox roster currently. There is no pressing need to rid ourselves of a young guy with amazing stuff that most pitchers cannot throw. I don't see the panic 9-1-1 call here that you frenzy yourself with concerning him. He is young and has curve/change/fastball combo that is simply rare in a pitcher. Maybe Buch was brought up (rushed to Boston) last year way too early? Maybe. Maybe not. But I think I'm willing to wait out the first half of this coming season to see how he produces.

    Again, from an earlier post, I was listening to Greg Maddux this morning talk about how he went 8-18 his first two years before turning his career around and mastering the movement and location of his pitches. He attributes his turnaround to finally finding the right pitching coach who found the proper grip of ball and delivery motion/mechanics, and to use movement over arm power. Bucholz has the pitches that need the same attention. And maybe, just maybe this is what Theo and the coaches see in him. I'm willing to wait until July before saying you were right.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]I don't think other teams see red flags though, rather an opportunity to acquire a young pitcher with top-of-the rotation potential. (technically, Buchholz is not a prospect since he's no longer considered a rookie, I believe.) That's why his name keeps coming up in trade rumors.[/Quote]

    Perhaps another team or two has inquired about Clay Buchholz because they think Boston's trade demands should be deeply discounted on the basis of Buchholz's performance in 2008.

    You are correct that Clay Buchholz no longer meets the common definition of a prospect. For that matter, Jarrod Saltalamacchia has not qualified as a prospect since before the 2007 season.

    [quote]I think the only catching prospect they'd trade Buchholz for is Baltimore's Matt Wieters, but that's not going to happen. At least not now.[/quote]

    Baltimore won't be trading 22-year-old catcher Matt Wieters for a starting pitcher who matched the 2008 numbers posted by Radhames Liz.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChrisHouse. Show ChrisHouse's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Moonslav, I'll bet that you were for the Hanley trade since Hanley while having lots of potential didn't blossom until after he was traded. Want to divulge if you wanted Hanley gone for us or be like Law2005 and never show your cards and just be a Monday morning QB who is always correct.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from badscience. Show badscience's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    The funny thing about this thread is that for many posters there is the underlying belief that the FO is out of their minds for hanging on to this guy. Especially, the posts that assume they have some irrational crush
    on him as a player (we are talking about a FO that lets fan favorites leave the team when the numbers don't add up anymore. See Damon, Nixon, Martinez, Tek etc.)

    What you have to remember is that the FO knows more about Buchholz than anyone else and I'm speaking empirically here. They have invested considerable time and money into him as a prospect and have established a value for him. And that value seems to be increasing in their estimation. Granted, that value may prove to be too high, but IMO you have to give the experts their due.

    To a large degree, they're looking at this as a math problem e.g. Buchy + need for catcher = which catcher. If the catcher was Martin or Mauer and the FO could make the formula work with $$ and other prospects, they'd do it. If it's Buchy for Salty straight up, apparently the FO doesn't think it adds up. If the inputs change, for instance, the FO sees something they don't like in Buchholz or the catching situation becomes more dire for whatever reason, the formula might change and a deal will be made. The fact that the FO has built out great depth in the pitching department this winter may swing the balance the way of a trade or it might just give Buchy more time to develop at the AAA level. Time will tell.

    Patience is the key to any great farm system and the Sox have generally been very successful with their prospects. Have faith!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgr01002. Show dgr01002's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]My head is spinning with all this nonsensical drivel.
    1 no hitter does not make for greatness.
    Many fantastic pitchers have never has a no no.
    I'll take a Cy Young pitcher over a one game wonder anyday! Even if clay becomes a CY Young pitcher, we are even, unless Theo locks Buc up in a 10 year contact, but Theo doesn't extend many players before their arb date expires.
    [/Quote]
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]The funny thing about this thread is that for many posters there is the underlying belief that the FO is out of their minds for hanging on to this guy. Especially, the posts that assume they have some irrational crush
    on him as a player (we are talking about a FO that lets fan favorites leave the team when the numbers don't add up anymore. See Damon, Nixon, Martinez, Tek etc.)

    What you have to remember is that the FO knows more about Buchholz than anyone else and I'm speaking empirically here. They have invested considerable time and money into him as a prospect and have established a value for him. And that value seems to be increasing in their estimation. Granted, that value may prove to be too high, but IMO you have to give the experts their due.

    To a large degree, they're looking at this as a math problem e.g. Buchy + need for catcher = which catcher. If the catcher was Martin or Mauer and the FO could make the formula work with $$ and other prospects, they'd do it. If it's Buchy for Salty straight up, apparently the FO doesn't think it adds up. If the inputs change, for instance, the FO sees something they don't like in Buchholz or the catching situation becomes more dire for whatever reason, the formula might change and a deal will be made. The fact that the FO has built out great depth in the pitching department this winter may swing the balance the way of a trade or it might just give Buchy more time to develop at the AAA level. Time will tell.

    Patience is the key to any great farm system and the Sox have generally been very successful with their prospects. Have faith![/Quote]

    Most prospects (like 99%) end up going nowhere. Yes, the Sox have had some good ones help out lately, but even with this success, loo at how many have sucked or will never progress in the minors. It's ok to keep some, but trading some is ok too.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bushguy. Show bushguy's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Moonlslav,
    Trading prospects is often a great idea. Whoever pulled the trigger on Beckett did so in part because he was under control for a couple years and would listen to a reasonable offer that might buy out a year or 2 of arbitration. Trading highly regarded prospects for a pitcher that was going to ask for, and eventually got, the highest contract ever for a pitcher at the time is a much bigger risk.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgr01002. Show dgr01002's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Nobody is saying a single no hitter is greatness. I think LAW2xxx pointing out that a no hitter against Baltimore discounts a pitcher is just a lame retort to base an opinion. All of us would take a Cy Young any day (depending on the contract and trade value). But none are currently available. And none, no matter how hard LAW cries, are currently available for Clay Bucholz in a trade. So it's a mute point and separate discussion. There isn't a person on this discussion board who is saying "Bucholz threw a no hit ergo he is the next coming of Nolan Ryan." The point is that he has tremendous stuff that most pitchers cannot throw, especially his curve/change. He had a tough MLB debut...but finese pitchers, unlike power arms can often make simple adjustments and find their groove. Unless there is a great package we can put together for a proven great player, I think most people are saying let's hold on to him a bit longer and see how he does.

    Even LAW's wet dream, Johan Santana, had some shaky performances early on that could have made hysterical fans and a hysterical front office want to dump him quick. But some pitchers have stuff that cannot be duplicated, such as Santana, "ergo" they keep him:
    1997 0-4 7.93 ERA
    1998 7-6 4.93 ERA
    1999 8-8 4.66 ERA
    His first year in the Majors 2000, he went 2-3 with a 6.49 ERA
    and the years that followed:
    2001: 1-0
    2002: 5-2
    2003: 8-6

    Again, not exactly Cy Young stuff, and if he were a Boston pitcher, LAW would be on here yelling to dump him for someone else. And look Santana ever since 2003. Nothing short of amazing.

    Everyone is in such a rush just becuase it's off season. We have a good, competitive team. And we can easily compete through the first half of this season, and depending on the FA's we've signed, possibly far into August/Sept. There are a TON of ?? coming, including Ortiz, Lowell, Youk actually worth keeping if we can't sign him (And yes I pray we sign him). And it may just be that a blockbuster including one of these players is how Theo is approaching the first half of the season where he will NEED Bucholz in a package for a trade so he doesn't have to lose Bard or Bowden. Just one thought. Point is he may be buying time with all these veterans with injuries. Did anyone think that Penny might be trade bait if he pitches fairly well come May?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from badscience. Show badscience's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    I agree that trading prospects can be smart.

    I'm not saying "don't trade him," I'm saying that the FO has put a certain value on him that has yet to be balanced in a trade proposal and that they should know his true value better than anyone else.

    I also believe that Buchy has moved beyond the "prospect" label to "talented young pitcher" status by showing that he has ML chops (no hitter, a few great games), but he needs more time/experience (2nd half of his season last year.)

    By all means, trade him if it makes sense, but don't sell him short.

    [Quote]

    Most prospects (like 99%) end up going nowhere. Yes, the Sox have had some good ones help out lately, but even with this success, loo at how many have sucked or will never progress in the minors. It's ok to keep some, but trading some is ok too.[/Quote]
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]

    Most prospects (like 99%) end up going nowhere. Yes, the Sox have had some good ones help out lately, but even with this success, loo at how many have sucked or will never progress in the minors. It's ok to keep some, but trading some is ok too.[/Quote]


    Look at how many sucked? If you're talking about premier prospects, that's 1, right? Youk, Pedroia, Papelbon, Lester, and MDC have all succeeded, with Ellsbury doing well after one season. Hansen sucked. The success rate, as much as anything else, argues in favor of keeping him.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    The best argument in favor of keeping Buchholz I've seen made in this thread is the comparison to Lester. That has some merit - because Lester blossomed this last year - beyond what I thought he would.

    The worst argument in favor of keeping Buchholz is that he threw a no-hitter. Who cares? Matt Young through a no hitter.

    The second worst? The predictions that he'll win 18 - 20 games. That is a HUGE leap.

    The best argument to trade him? We need a BAT FOR OUR LINE UP.

    Second best argument: His value was highest last spring. It is lower now. Another year like 2008 (likely) and he is useless in a trade. Time is NOT on the Sox side.

    Lastly, we have lots of young arms - and the only one who pitched poorly last year and showed mental fragility is Buchholz.

    Package him and get offensive help.

    Did I mention we need help?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]Moonslav, I'll bet that you were for the Hanley trade since Hanley while having lots of potential didn't blossom until after he was traded. Want to divulge if you wanted Hanley gone for us or be like Law2005 and never show your cards and just be a Monday morning QB who is always correct.[/Quote]
    YYes I was for the Hanley Trade and can admit when I am wrong. I was also for re-signing Schill, and yes...re-signing Lowell. Now where are all your confessions?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from joeyama99. Show joeyama99's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Second best argument: His value was highest last spring. It is lower now. Another year like 2008 (likely) and he is useless in a trade. Time is NOT on the Sox side


    I think you're wrong here. Time is on the Sox side. They have other prospects they can trade for a bat. Give Buchholz a chance to improve, and he might just blossom like Lester. Do you really believe he won't progress at all this upcoming season?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from joeyama99. Show joeyama99's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?


    Baltimore won't be trading 22-year-old catcher Matt Wieters for a starting pitcher who matched the 2008 numbers posted by Radhames Liz.


    I know Wieters is going nowhere, he's the top prospect in all of baseball, but it's ok to dream once in awhile.

    I still think you're judging Buchholz on too small a sample size, 75 MLB innings in '08. Judge him on his whole professional career and you can see that all he needs is to improve his fastball command and regain his confidence. Not easy, but very possible.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    i think buchholz will do better this season for one huge reason: His wind up.

    I have heard that they changed it back to his old windup, which he was using when he threw the no hitter. They tried to change it for last season and obviously it did not work. I for one am not ready to give up on him. He has really good pitches he just needs to gain some confidence and trust his fastball. If he does not trust his fastball he will struggle again cuz he needs to use it to set up his offspeed pitches. If i was theo i would not trade him for a catcher except matt wieters but i dont see that happening, i would not trade him for salty or teagarden. I would trade bowden for either of them in a heartbeat. I dont seem him being any higher than a #3 pitcher but i think he will more likely be a number 4 guy. He is basically joe blanton junior. Hopefully buchholz does good in spring training and gets the #5 spot behind penny. He could start until smoltz is ready to play.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from brooklynyanqui. Show brooklynyanqui's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    A friend of mine, who knows a guy who has a cousin who used to work as a MLB scout, was told by the scout that Buchholz is way better than Lester. I know he lost twice to the Yanks last year, giving up 7 runs in 3.2 innings at the old Stadium in one game. But he's really really great. As a fan of baseball, I really want to see him in the Sox rotation. So no way should he have been traded for Santana. Those old Yanks get tied up in knots by Mr Santana's change-up: fortunately they only see him 2 times a year now in the Subway series. Theo: Keep Clay and pitch him against the Yanks every chance you get. Theo is brilliant. God bless him.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from longview1967. Show longview1967's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    I think a key point is missing here: Theo and Tito totally mismanaged Buchholz last year. They brought him back up when he wasn’t ready, then they kept him too long. They kept making the increasingly untenable claim that if Buch was sent down, he would lose his confidence. So he kept getting lit up, and he kept losing his confidence, and the rest is history. Having said that, I don’t think that makes him a “headcase,” but rather someone who got put in a bad situation, and if handled better, could come back. There’s no doubting his stuff, but that can be said for lots of young pitchers who never made it (ever seen Joel Piniero when he was a young 5-tool stud?). I would hope that the Sox do a better job of building him up so that he can develop his true potential.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from longview1967. Show longview1967's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]

    You spent spent all this time throwing a bunch of words together with numbers, letters, punctuation, and yet, didn't make a single coherent point. Truly amazing. Now get back to knitting your human skin bodysuit in the comfort of your mom's basement.

    With that, I will answer the closest thing to a point you made, which is #2:
    Bucholz DOESN'T HAVE TO PITCH FOR BOSTON NEXT YEAR. If he's not ready to come up, they will look to Bard or Bowden firstly. Meaning, he stays put in the minors. I'm quite sure you know a lot about being mentally and emotionally unstable, just from experiencing your jibbering on here, so, it's hard to argue with you on this point about Bucholz. Yeah, he got shelled last year. And that's traumatic. I put more of that on Boston keeping him too long. Someone noted that they changed his mechanics/delivery last year. Who knows? But I think he's worth keeping in development - again - it's worth the risk to find out if he can refine his stuff. That is unless you are also part of the PAWTUCKET NATION, and your life is so hinging on our Rhode Island farm team winning too. You act like there is this huge market out there waiting for him, and that your personal sanity and livelyhood depends on him being traded.

    Be patient, my man. There are a lot of ?'s to be evaluated during Spring Training and the first half of this season, especially with Ortiz and Lowell, even Lowrie's and Ellisbury's overall value. And again, we may see some much bigger, more unexpected package with one of the above players that hinges on Bucholz to bring players in.[/Quote]

    Exactly. Let him earn his way back to the bigs, hopefully with some sound mentoring, and take your time. My worry is that some of those damaged arms will give way at once and the Sox will be speeding him up again. But we have other arms in AAA that should be given a short first if Buch doens't seem ready

    Odd notion that "mental" problems are somehow worse than physical problems. Based on a recent survey? Any number of pitchers—Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, etc. (oh, and Beckett a couple of years ago)—had to go through some kind of mental adjustments to bring their full potential to the fore. It's true that a player (at any position, actually) can get his head so messed up that he never makes it. Buch's got too much talent at this point to simply give up. By the way, I'm not arguing that he's "untouchable." If the right deal comes along, I hope Theo pulls the string. But I'd like to see the Sox take one more shot at developing this guy, whether to get prime value in a trade or get the benefits of his playihg value on the team.

    This isn't an open-and-shut case, of course. I do see it as a risk, and there is a chance he'll flame out. My read is that it's worth throwing the dice. Let's wait a year and see who's right.
     

Share