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

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]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.[/Quote]

    A friend of mine, who knows a girl who once dated a guy who was the brotehr of a guy who talked to a scout, told me the scout said Buchholtz is the greatest pitcher on earth. I'm glad we have him and not Santana.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChrisHouse. Show ChrisHouse's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    I know one thing for sure and it is that if we trade Bucholz and in a few years he becomes another Santana then Law2005 and Moonslaw will say " I told you so, Boy Blunder has s-it the bed again, what did you expect, the FO never does anything right". Someone asked Law2005 earlier if Theo ever made a correct move and he couldn't think of one. It sounds like a prejudiced, closed mindset to me. He will deftly sidestep committing himself if the trade happens by saying that what we got in exchange was inadequate, so Law wins both ways. He is a master at throwing up smokescreens and being non-commital.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bigdog1. Show bigdog1's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    check out his numbers guys, he had a great winter and scouts from both the diamondbacks and dodgers thinks he is a poteintual #1. It took several great pitchers a couple of season's to develope, let's give him a lttle more time, anybody remember dustin pedrioa slow start, give this kid alittle more time.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]I know one thing for sure and it is that if we trade Bucholz and in a few years he becomes another Santana then Law2005 and Moonslaw will say " I told you so, Boy Blunder has s-it the bed again, what did you expect, the FO never does anything right". Someone asked Law2005 earlier if Theo ever made a correct move and he couldn't think of one. It sounds like a prejudiced, closed mindset to me. He will deftly sidestep committing himself if the trade happens by saying that what we got in exchange was inadequate, so Law wins both ways. He is a master at throwing up smokescreens and being non-commital.[/Quote]

    Wrong! I have said before, I may end up being wrong on the Han Ram/Sanchez for Beckett/Lowell trade that I was for all along, but now it appears to be swinging towards a toss up or worse. I admit I was wrong on being on the re-signing of Schilling.

    Wrong! I have never advocated trading Buchholtz for Salty. I don't know enough about salty to have an opinion on that move. I never said Buchholtz sucks or will never be great. Santana is a once in a decade type opportunity. I would have traded buc, Ells and Lowrie for him and I would have traded Lester, Ells and Lowrie for him. I may turn out to be very wrong. I am man enough to admit it.

    Wrong! Don't link me with Law on everything. I think Theo is not terrible, just bad to average. He has been better than fantastic with his draft picks, almost flawless, although it does help that the Sox can pick players late in the draft that everyone wanted, but couldn't afford. I like his decision to let Pedro and Damon go, and him not overpaying for Tex, CC or AJ. I like the Smoltz and Penny signings. I can and have however, named many more bad moves. I know the job is tough and most GMs bat under .500. I am just amazed at how many Theo apologists think he's batting 1.000.

    I'd like to hear just one Theo apologist (and you know who you are), give some examples of mistakes Theo has made. Be a man. Suck it up. Go ahead.... you can do it!
    (sound of crickets chirping)
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BuschBound. Show BuschBound's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]This thread would only be 20 posts long if it wasn't for Law2005 and his partner in Theo hatred purposely irritating all of you. Isn't it time to come to the conclusion that he is a Yankee troll?[/Quote]

    Well aware.......
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dano50. Show dano50's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Gotta love some of this revisionism. The deal rejected for Santana was Buchholz, Ellsbury and Lester. For the opportunity to pay what was at the time, the largest and longest contract EVER for a picher. It was not a straight trade in the truest sense. I am still extremely happy Theo passed on that deal. As years pass, it will look even better that they did.

    You know what proves the case? The very fact that the first two names in every trade proposal by other clubs are Buchholz and Ellsbury. I guess certain nitwits in here, that will remain unnamed by me anyway, think their depth of knowledge is far greater than the majority of actual baseball people who do this stuff for a living!

    BTW...I don't think either Buchholz or Ellsbury ARE "untouchable". I challenge anyone to locate a quote by anyone in the Red Sox organization that has said that. The price needs to be fair. It's called NEGOTIATING people!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgr01002. Show dgr01002's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]

    Wrong! I have said before, I may end up being wrong on the Han Ram/Sanchez for Beckett/Lowell trade that I was for all along, but now it appears to be swinging towards a toss up or worse. I admit I was wrong on being on the re-signing of Schilling.

    Wrong! I have never advocated trading Buchholtz for Salty. I don't know enough about salty to have an opinion on that move. I never said Buchholtz sucks or will never be great. Santana is a once in a decade type opportunity. I would have traded buc, Ells and Lowrie for him and I would have traded Lester, Ells and Lowrie for him. I may turn out to be very wrong. I am man enough to admit it.

    Wrong! Don't link me with Law on everything. I think Theo is not terrible, just bad to average. He has been better than fantastic with his draft picks, almost flawless, although it does help that the Sox can pick players late in the draft that everyone wanted, but couldn't afford. I like his decision to let Pedro and Damon go, and him not overpaying for Tex, CC or AJ. I like the Smoltz and Penny signings. I can and have however, named many more bad moves. I know the job is tough and most GMs bat under .500. I am just amazed at how many Theo apologists think he's batting 1.000.

    I'd like to hear just one Theo apologist (and you know who you are), give some examples of mistakes Theo has made. Be a man. Suck it up. Go ahead.... you can do it!
    (sound of crickets chirping)
    [/Quote]

    Firstly, someone said this entire board would be 20 posts long without LAW. I enjoy LAW's perspective or I wouldn't be on here debating and having fun. It's not so serious and LAW does make this experience a bit entertaining.

    But so too does calling a lot of folks on here "Theo" apologists. I could care less what "Theo" does, personally. I think as a fan, all of us are looking at moves being made by whomever is in the Sox FO and calling the shots and EVALUATING (in our humble opinion) those moves. So, it's not "Theo" we're defending. It's some of their off season moves. And keeping Bucholz is something I think must be done (IMHO). We simply do not know what the FO's approach to Ortiz/Lowell and other player's value are, and if there will be some major opportunities in July. Lots of markets are gonna take HUGE financial hits with attendance this year and be looking to DUMP bigger contracts/salaries in a hurry, especially if they are out of contention. And the big market teams like Boston (almost $50 million under 2008 budget) are primed for trades with a loaded bench and decent prospects. While NYY is just pissing money and years on "what's available on the FA shelf" Boston may be biding it's time for some smarter moves. DETROIT Tigers are a perfect example of a team that just may not financially be able to keep their players, such as Verlander or Ordonez as "possible" examples. On our end, what if Brad Penny has a pretty good start? Well, even he is then marketable in a trade due to his short-term deal.

    Just to humor MOONSLAV (even though this discussion board topic is ABOUT Bucholz and why we aren't discussing other Sox topics here)...HERE ARE MY FO/Theo questionables:

    I personally like most of the risks we've taken this year. One exception would be the Coco trade. I think it was premature and based on the FO thinking they were gonna get Texiera or something to that effect. I'm not 100% sold on that move in a straight up trade. So, I question it. I feel as though Coco warranted more value than a middle releiver, but maybe they see something I do not.

    I question JD Drew at $70 million. I live in ATL, and was never too fond of him here. (Nor was I too blown away by Texiera in ATL even though he was 2nd in RBI's for the time he was here). But again, not sure Drew was the perfect fit for the money but he's not bad.

    Not getting Paps and Youk locked up seems pretty crazy to me too, but that is also a two-way street that Paps and Youk have to come to the table mutually to get a deal done here. I think losing Paps to FA is a huge mistake b/c NYY will absolutely get him to replace grandpa Riviera.

    Julio Lugo?? Um, I think we can all agree that the FO's love story with Lugo even before getting him was seemingly ill-fated. In fact, most of our SS over the last few years have not produced at the plate.

    Happy?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgr01002. Show dgr01002's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]Gotta love some of this revisionism. The deal rejected for Santana was Buchholz, Ellsbury and Lester. For the opportunity to pay what was at the time, the largest and longest contract EVER for a picher. It was not a straight trade in the truest sense. I am still extremely happy Theo passed on that deal. As years pass, it will look even better that they did.

    You know what proves the case? The very fact that the first two names in every trade proposal by other clubs are Buchholz and Ellsbury. I guess certain nitwits in here, that will remain unnamed by me anyway, think their depth of knowledge is far greater than the majority of actual baseball people who do this stuff for a living!

    BTW...I don't think either Buchholz or Ellsbury ARE "untouchable". I challenge anyone to locate a quote by anyone in the Red Sox organization that has said that. The price needs to be fair. It's called NEGOTIATING people!
    [/Quote]

    Well put.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]Why would I take "maybe or maybe not" - when I can deal Buchholz for Michael Young - and have an all-star bat and SS guaranteed?[/Quote]

    You might deal Buchholz, but not for Young. He's 32, has a ton of $ coming over the next 5 or so years and is undoubtedly declining. OPS over last 4 years: .898, .815, .784, .741. Lowrie was .739 in his first half season and played pretty reliable, if not spectacular defense. What's the upside there?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Buchholz's most important stat?

    $396,000

    He's cheap. But cheap doesn't = wins. The Sox are all about saving cash (which never translates to the fans). That is the new priority. save on payroll and charge a fortune for tickets and gear.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from longview1967. Show longview1967's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]Buchholz's most important stat?

    $396,000

    He's cheap. But cheap doesn't = wins. The Sox are all about saving cash (which never translates to the fans). That is the new priority. save on payroll and charge a fortune for tickets and gear.[/Quote]

    They have the second highest payroll in baseball, but have to compete with the Yankees, who have about 25% more payroll. And they are maxed out on adding revenue by selling more tickets because they have a small stadium that is always sold out. So yes, they have to watch their payroll to compete. They've also frozen ticket prices for next year. Cheap players are good because it alllows the Sox to trade for or sign expensive players. They've done it before, they will do it again WHEN IT MAKES SENSE. Whenever a fan advocates for a signing, that fan should understand there is an opportunity cost of potential players who cannot be signed because the Sox have maxed out their budget. I may or may not agree with a Sox FO move, but I never think it's because they don't want to win and instead think they'll make a little more money up front. There has been no evidence for it, and if you can find evidence for it, let me know.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Sox were 4th in payroll last year - and they have cut payroll for this year. Is that the kind of evidence you had in mind?

    Sox revenue was 263 million last year (#2 in baseball and way ahead of #3)
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from HHS1964. Show HHS1964's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Many pitchers with great stuff don't make it in the big leagues. I believe Bucholz does not have the demeaner to pitch at Fenway.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]santana also would have cost them ellsbury...you moron who thinks buch was the dealbreaker.

    nobody said buch was untouchable. it's just that pitching doesn't blossom at age 23 most of the time.

    you think the giants are happy they traded joe nathan for a catcher?[/Quote]
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from flounder1967. Show flounder1967's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    YOU ALL NEED A GIRLFRIEND.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgr01002. Show dgr01002's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]
    Theo Chicks continue to beat that dead horse about the Santana trade. How many different excuses are they going to come up with?

    First Buchholz wasn't even on the table.
    Then he was, but it would have taken Lester too.
    That wasn't true so Santana was overrated (yeah coming off a Cy Young and barely missing another one in 2008--real overrated)
    Then the news outlets that reported that Buchholz was the player the Twins asked for by name weren't credible (NY Times, NY Post, SI.com).

    Chicks.[/Quote]

    Sigh.

    LAW, you seriously need to get over Santana. Here are some articles from the time surrounding the trade talks...LESTER, CRISP, BOWDEN, LOWRIE, BUCH and ELLSBURY were all discussed:

    1.
    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3133598

    2.
    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3138088

    3.
    http://blog.masslive.com/redsoxmonster/2008/01/the_johan_santana_trade_fallou.html

    4.
    http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2008/01/29/its_still_a_no_decision/

    LAW, your revisionist belief that Buch was the hinge of getting Santana is madness. And false. Lester and Ellsbury were the two players that Minn was arguing for. Boston wasn't willing to part with BOTH...but would have traded "one" in a package. THEN Minn said, okay, Buch AND Lester. Um, uh, at the time, even YOU would not have made that trade...which included Boston's two TOP young arms in the organization, much less all of MLB. And I'd take Lester and his salary and age over Santana any day - using today as hindsight.

    You seriously need to stop thinking that a pitcher who isn't even going to BE in Boston for opening day needs to be shed from the organization so immediately. It's just plain crazy. He is a major movement pitcher that is rare in baseball. His fastball and mechanics are what is hurting him. These things "can" be modified. I don't know everything about Bucholz, and don't profess to know. But neither do you. Maybe he was trying to use his arm to overpower batters last year using that weak fastball with NO movement? Maybe he needs to just modify. I don't know. But I'm willing to wait it out through July to see how he comes along. It's really not an emergency, man. Bard and Bowden will probably be getting the Boston mound before Buch does. And AGAIN, I think Theo & Co are waiting to see how Ortiz and Lowell bounce back in Spring Training. I'd rather stockpile my options IN CASE either or BOTH don't return to form. AND AGAIN, the MAJORITY of markets are going to suffer HUGE financial losses with ticket sales and be looking to SHED salaries to stay afloat come July/August. Boston is primed to jump on some huge players to fill whatever holes we need. We've got the prospects, we've got the active players (including Youk, Ortiz, Lowell), we've got the cash to either eat big salaires or pick up a big salary. Either way, we're primed to make big moves far smarter than anything NYY has done.

    If Theo blows this strategy, I will switch to your side and become a LAW CHIC.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from fancy-shamanski. Show fancy-shamanski's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    What about lester????? STart of last season everyone was saying he sucks and get rid of him??? Look how that turned out??? You can't write off Bucholz now at all. He is too young. YOu are all fools that change your minds every day. Today you say trade him. This/ next season when bucholz is great you'll all say i loved him from the start.

    Bucholz is good, hansen is a prospect that sucks. there is a cleare difference between the 2.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from fancy-shamanski. Show fancy-shamanski's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Also theo is a great GM, Tell me a more sucessful team in the past 6 years 2 WS 2 ALCS game 7s. Theo has made plenty of mistakes, he is a little weak in free agency. All in all he makes way less mistakes then other GMs and is the best GM in baseball.
    Yes i am smarter then you law and Pike sorry to inform you.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BuschBound. Show BuschBound's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    LAW, your revisionist belief that Buch was the hinge of getting Santana is madness. And false. Lester and Ellsbury were the two players that Minn was arguing for. Boston wasn't willing to part with BOTH...but would have traded "one" in a package. THEN Minn said, okay, Buch AND Lester. Um, uh, at the time, even YOU would not have made that trade...which included Boston's two TOP young arms in the organization, much less all of MLB. And I'd take Lester and his salary and age over Santana any day - using today as hindsight.

    You seriously need to stop thinking that a pitcher who isn't even going to BE in Boston for opening day needs to be shed from the organization so immediately. It's just plain crazy. He is a major movement pitcher that is rare in baseball. His fastball and mechanics are what is hurting him. These things "can" be modified. I don't know everything about Bucholz, and don't profess to know. But neither do you. Maybe he was trying to use his arm to overpower batters last year using that weak fastball with NO movement? Maybe he needs to just modify. I don't know. But I'm willing to wait it out through July to see how he comes along. It's really not an emergency, man. Bard and Bowden will probably be getting the Boston mound before Buch does. And AGAIN, I think Theo & Co are waiting to see how Ortiz and Lowell bounce back in Spring Training. I'd rather stockpile my options IN CASE either or BOTH don't return to form. AND AGAIN, the MAJORITY of markets are going to suffer HUGE financial losses with ticket sales and be looking to SHED salaries to stay afloat come July/August. Boston is primed to jump on some huge players to fill whatever holes we need. We've got the prospects, we've got the active players (including Youk, Ortiz, Lowell), we've got the cash to either eat big salaires or pick up a big salary. Either way, we're primed to make big moves far smarter than anything NYY has done.

    If Theo blows this strategy, I will switch to your side and become a LAW CHIC


    DING DING DING!!! WELL PUT dgr
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from njalb. Show njalb's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Bucholtz = another Hantsen, same overhyped "deer in the headlights" look. Saw him pitch twice last season in person and my gut tells me he has no mound presence and has a weak personality. I will be the first to line up and apologize if not accurate, but I've got a bad feeling that this guy is a loser. Trade him, NOW
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgr01002. Show dgr01002's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]

    I've heard this before...when I criticized Epstein for considering Gagne. Yeah yeah, wait and see. As far as the Santana trade goes, those articles ALL prove my point. Speculation about who the Twins wanted, or leaked reports of who Boston offered.

    DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT that the Twins ASKED...I said ASKED for Clay Buchholz. The only pitcher MN asked for by name. Period. Theo took Buchholz off the table, and none of the proposed player exchanges were accepted. Do I need to draw a picture of a hinge for you to get this?

    Theo's strategy has already backfired. He ran Manny out of town, and went cheapie with Jason Bay, gambling that he was going to get Teixeira and all would be well. Now spring training is weeks away there is no serious power threat in the Sox offense, and the entire season hangs on injured, aging pitchers at the bottom of the rotation like Brad Penny and Wakefield to try and keep DiceK and Lester from having to pitch 200+ innings until Smoltz magically rides in and saves the day...all with a Lowell who can't run right now, an Ortiz who isn't the 06 or 04 model and NO power in the lineup, only good contact, scrappy hitters like Youk and Pedroia. That's not going to get it done. Someone said it a few weeks back and I agree. Theo and the Sox FO are cashing in this season, slashing payroll and cutting bonus checks to each other.[/Quote]

    No. They asked...asked for Lester and a package of three players minimum. They were (at the time) asking for the world, especially when Ellsbury was coming off an amazing WS performance and Bucholz was the #1 prospect not only in the Sox organization, but on many MLB projections. Bucholz wasn't even a central name in the discussions. Read these articles. They are current to the time about what each team was asking for and what each team was discussing. Lester and Ellsbury were the major names and I think MN even ridiculously asked for Buch, Lester AND Ellsbury in one package. Ridiculous!
     

Share