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

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    NEW YORK, Jan 15 (Reuters) - The Boston Globe will cut 12 percent of its newsroom staff through buyouts and possibly layoffs, the latest sign of how an advertising downturn is corroding the fortunes of U.S. newspapers.
    The Globe, which is owned by the New York Times Co (NYT.N), is offering buyouts to all of its newsroom staff in an effort to cut up to 50 full-time employees, Editor Martin Baron told workers in a memo posted on the paper's Boston.com website on Thursday.
    "While we hope to reach the goal through voluntary departures, we will resort to layoffs," Baron wrote. This would apply to both union and non-union workers, he added.
    A Globe spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
    The paper's news staff has shrunk over the years as advertising revenue has tanked in the Boston area. The paper now has 379 full-time employees, and 433 full-time equivalent positions, New York Times Co spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said.

    Hopefully they kill this forum soon.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgr01002. Show dgr01002's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]

    They asked for Lester? Funny thing...the New York Post, New York Daily News, NY Times and SI.com say that the only pitcher MN asked for was Clay Buchholz in that three player package.

    Epstein countered by offering (MN didnt ask, Theo OFFERED) Jon Lester. Not only was Buchholz the central name, when Theo took him out of the discussion the Twins walked away and didn't seriously entertain ANY of Epstein's counter offers.

    Stop "thinking" about things that are KNOWN to be wrong.
    [/Quote]

    Doofus. I cited and linked you to FOUR articles that were REPORTED from 2007/2008 about the "on going trade talks" between Boston and MN. Do I need to find more? It's as easy as www.google.com. Most articles barely even mention Bucholz. They focus on 1. Ellsbury and 2. Lester. And the major problem Boston was having was MN wanted three to four players for Santana. They were making ridiculously high demands. Again, going back in our little pretend time machine, Ellsbury, Bucholz and Lester's stock couldn't have been higher by any scouts in baseball, even with Lester's recovery. MN was asking for all three or two of the three PLUS two other prospects (if not all three).

    All you do is claim the NYT (and you know it's true if the Times reports it) said this. Show me the article. It never happened for Bucholz alone. Read the links I posted here. Just chose one. Then the next. I'll add more if you'd like. You just use your mouse to highlight the link, then bring your mouse up to that long white bar at the top of your computer, hit paste, then hit enter. Voila!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgr01002. Show dgr01002's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]

    They asked for Lester? Funny thing...the New York Post, New York Daily News, NY Times and SI.com say that the only pitcher MN asked for was Clay Buchholz in that three player package.

    Epstein countered by offering (MN didnt ask, Theo OFFERED) Jon Lester. Not only was Buchholz the central name, when Theo took him out of the discussion the Twins walked away and didn't seriously entertain ANY of Epstein's counter offers.

    Stop "thinking" about things that are KNOWN to be wrong. [/Quote]

    Oh...and another article. I made this easy in case the cut & paste instructions were a wee bit much. I cut & pasted the article myself:


    Latest Johan Santana Rumors
    By Tim Dierkes [December 11, 2007 at 2:55pm CST]
    UPDATE, 12-11-07 at 2:54pm: Jon Heyman puts the Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets as the three leading suitors for Johan. Matthew Cerrone, however, believes the Rangers, rather than the Yanks, are the third leading suitor.
    FROM 12-11-07 at 8:52am:
    Joe Christensen of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune has the latest buzz surrounding the Johan Santana trade talks.
    The Red Sox and Twins talked yesterday, and the Twins are leading toward Jacoby Ellsbury rather than Jon Lester. Jed Lowrie and Justin Masterson would also be included, and the sides are trying to figure out a fourth player.


    Hmm? Does anyone here see the words "Clay" + "Bucholz" in above article FROM the Minn Star-Tribune? Err? Uh? Um?

    No.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChrisHouse. Show ChrisHouse's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Youk signs 4 yrs - $40 mil.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from btlr. Show btlr's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    [Quote]

    You've already seen what happened with Clay Buchholz. How much more do you need to see?[/Quote]


    Um, he's had 18 starts in the big leagues. I think we'd like to maybe see a bit more than that.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ABQDan. Show ABQDan's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Some of the remarks on this board are so baseball-dumb it's mind-blowing.

    Some are very intelligent, and I want to apologize in advance to them, and for anyone who posted after page 3 whom I echo here, but I had to stop reading.


    First, to answer the original post:
    1. Buccholz is not "untouchable." He's highly valued. How many other highly-valued starting pitching prospects have you seen being tossed around by other teams? He may or may not be traded - but given your posts, I doubt you have Theo "in your Five," and so the use of 'untouchable' is speculative at best.

    2. You don't sell into a falling market. Buccholz's perceived value fell after last year, which means you won't get max return on him right now.
    The stock analogy is too simplistic, but there is something that went unmentioned by those who bring it up. You don't lose your shirt refusing to sell into a sinking market, you lose your shirt by refusing to diversify your risk and having all your eggs in one (sinking) basket.

    Or to put it in baseball terms you might get: one doesn't trade starting pitchers until you are CERTAIN they will never win 15 games and give you 180+ innings in a MLB season.


    What I find incredible is the lack of understanding here of the things that are most-valued in major league baseball, given the apparent amount of time you donate to the topic.

    Are any of you actually fans of the game, or just like buying merchandise and wanking on a message board? I'm sorry to be like that, but there's a limit ...

    Here's what MLB teams really, really value, other than the obvious dominators like A-Rod, Beckett, etc.

    * Innings-eating starters who keep you in a game
    * Guys whose OBP outpaces others at their position
    * Ability to work the count (i.e., up the pitch count for opponents)
    * Versatility
    * Durability
    * Financial lack of leverage / roster flexibility

    So, when you have someone who has the potential to eat a lot of innings for you, whose contract you control for a while, who costs you very little right NOW on payroll, well, you hang on to him.

    See: remark above on how many other teams are winging around their top starting-pitching prospects for inflexible (SS or nothing!), overpaid, aging roster-weights like Michael Young.

    Yeah, they're just lining up.


    This is why players like Coco Crisp and Jacoby Ellsbury (who are basically the same player with different trim packages) aren't the be-all, end-all. Their primary traits (speed, good outfield defense) are more commonplace, and thus replaceable. One can make an argument that Ellsbury's speed is close to dominating, but if he can't improve his ability to get on base, that won't matter.


    "No wonder that this forum was vacated by so many for greener, more intelligent pastures."
    I wouldn't mind knowing where that is. If you care to post.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tookme5. Show tookme5's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    The bottom line? We had opportunity to separate ourselves in AL East by signing Santana. Is it fair to guys like Lowell, Ortiz and other veterans to wait for 'future' when they had chance to win it 'now' by adding a sure thing?

    How did that work out for Celtics? Drafting one high school phenom after another, building for the future. Clay MAY turn out to be a decent pitcher but we will never get back the 2008 season. Santana would have helped us.

    Theo loves Clay because they have the same makeup. Mentally soft. I'm willing to be 100% wrong about Clay but I have my doubts.

    I just don't see the toughness exhibited by Lester, Youk, Dustin, etc in Clay. He looks more like the guy in American Idol.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from flasox. Show flasox's posts

    Why is Buchholz untouchable?

    Law AKA Boras Jr.
    We have won 2 World Series in the past 5 years under this administration which is a considerably better than any other administration. The fact that you don't recognize this achievement and continue to bable about trades that weren't made or players whose feelings were hurt without any factual basis speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge about the team and its history. Please feel free to throw away your pink or other pastel colored hat and get of the bandwagon.

     

Share