Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc1944. Show MadMc1944's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As the saying goes, "everything is for sale"...or in the case of Buchholz, available for trade. Its all based on what we could get back for him. I doubt very much we could get more in return than he is worth, especially given the amount of money he will be making. So I say we ask around but accept only a dumptruck full of talent in return for him. When his contract comes up his MIA history can be addressed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily Pumps.  When his contract comes up he's a free agent, like Ellsbury.  Any word on how bad Ellsbury's injury history hurt him with his new deal? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said earlier HFX, if another GM wants to handcuff his franchise by paying a FA an outrageous sum, let him have at it. Thats not the way to build a winning team. Great for Ellsbury; bad for the Yankees. When I am saying that Buchholtz's MIA problems need to be addressed at contract time, I mean that OUR team needs to address it realistically. If a dunce of a GM wants to go Ellsbury for him, we move up in the power rankings.

    [/QUOTE]

    Seriously?  You think that Ellsbury going from Boston to New York and JBJ taking Ellsbury's place moves Boston UP in the power rankings?  And you think that moving Buch and replacing him with someone else would move Boston up again? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that our LONG TERM outlook is better, yes. The Yankees made a mistake by offering Ellsbury an outrageous (by your own admission) contract. That kind of thing is generally punished. Part of the reason the Yankees finished where they did relative to us this year is their long term commitments. Stupidity is generally punished. Either you believe that Ellsbury's contract was fair or you don't. If you believe that it was a mistake then the logical conclusion is that the team that did that deal is weakened by virtue of their mistake, and that other the other teams rise in power relative to the team that made the error, at least in the long term. If it was a great deal then the team that made the deal is better off. But by your own admission the contract was absurd.

     If we can get more than we give up for Buchholz then yes, we do move up in the power rankings. Thats my point.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pumpsie---the pimary reason the Yankees ended rup where they did was because of injuries. 

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

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As the saying goes, "everything is for sale"...or in the case of Buchholz, available for trade. Its all based on what we could get back for him. I doubt very much we could get more in return than he is worth, especially given the amount of money he will be making. So I say we ask around but accept only a dumptruck full of talent in return for him. When his contract comes up his MIA history can be addressed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily Pumps.  When his contract comes up he's a free agent, like Ellsbury.  Any word on how bad Ellsbury's injury history hurt him with his new deal? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said earlier HFX, if another GM wants to handcuff his franchise by paying a FA an outrageous sum, let him have at it. Thats not the way to build a winning team. Great for Ellsbury; bad for the Yankees. When I am saying that Buchholtz's MIA problems need to be addressed at contract time, I mean that OUR team needs to address it realistically. If a dunce of a GM wants to go Ellsbury for him, we move up in the power rankings.

    [/QUOTE]

    The problem will be that you want to pay Ellsbury based on the fact that he pitches only 2/3 as much as the top pitchers.  And I think that is not unreasonable.

    But his response will be, that since his ERA+ is probably in the top-10 in BB over the past 4 years, that he'll take the 2/3, but the base has to be like he was a top-10 pitcher.

    [/QUOTE]

    Presumably you mean Buchholz, since Ellsbury does not pitch well. I have no problem starting CB at a top 10 ERA+ pitcher then downgrading his salary offer to 2/3 of that number. Seems fair to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    So you're suggesting that I need to start typing the correct names in my posts?

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

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to patrickford's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Buchholtz is an artist. Very hard to predict. He's affordable right now. You stick with him.
    I expect the downside is greater than the upside. He's relatively cheap and worth the price. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I wouldn't underestimate the artist thing.  He's my favorite pitcher to watch.  At least a couple of times a game, he'll throw one of those pitches that'll freeze the batter, the ump, the announcers, everyone.  The kind of pitch where the batter is turning to the dugout before the ump calls strike three.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Even at 12M hes a bargain in todays MLB for his production. Have to see how he does this year and how the "kids" develop.

     

     

    if Day to Day Clay could pitch a mere 160 IP I'd say keep him.  Of course, (1) he can't and (2) he can not finish a season strong when you need him most.  So even if he gives you 160 you will still need someone to step in for Oct.  Much like Ross did w/ Salty last season.  Day to Day Clay is about to become to first platoon pitcher and earn 12 million.  It's like selling a used car that keeps on breaking down - time to make it someone else's problem now....

    How is 12 million for a platoon starter who can not finish the season healty a "bargain"?


    You need to platoon him with another starter and that will run you maybe 20 mil combined. 

    It's time to let someone else deal with Day to Day Clay.......

    [/QUOTE]


    Id take 160IP at 12M for Buch than I would take 180-200 from a lot of other pitchers at the same price.

    Hes at 7.7M this year and coming off a shoulder issue. Getting rid of him now would be beyond stupid.

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]


    I agree hes been inconsistent the last 4 years, but I think your over exaggerating a bit.

    2010 174IP and pitched through September/Oct

    2011 82IP didnt finish the year

    2012 189IP pitched through Sept/Oct

    2013 108IP didnt finish strong due to fatigue/injury.

    Its more inconsistent because of getting hurt than he cant do it.

    Selling him now coming off a bad year is not smart business. If we look at history, he should have a solid year in 2014 for 7.7M. It would be beyond stupid to try and move Clay right now. We can revisit this at the end of 2014.

    [/QUOTE]


    On the other hand, his value may never be higher (esp given his salary goes up after this year)...

    [/QUOTE]


    It would be foolish to get rid of him now.

    [/QUOTE]

    In what context? If we could haul in more than he is worth is it still foolish? Saying you would not trade a player in a vacumn is meaningless. That said, the likelihood of being able to get the better of the deal if Buchholz is traded is pretty low.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. Thank you

    Sorry, I thought it was obvious to everyone and didnt need to spell it out.

    Of course if it makes the team better, you almost always make the trade. Thats not happening coming off the year he did though. This is why I said, lets revisit after 2014.

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

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to billge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And you know strange. He was 12 and 1.  Lets trade him and get someone better Sun over yard arm at Fantasy Island.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes. 12-1. In a grand total of 108 innings. He is averaging about 120 innings per year over the six years he has been with the team for any length of time.Here is another guy like Ellsbury: great when he is in the lineup, but not in the lineup enough to qualify as a full time player. Issues like this get addressed when his contract comes up. I would keep him, but if he cannot demonstrate that he is a 200+ IP per year pitcher very soon then he should not be paid like one.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He spent limited time in the majors in 2008-09 because he was not ready and was sent back to Pawtucket for about a year. Combined between MLB and the minors, he threw 134.2 innings over 26 starts in '08 and 191 over 32 starts in '09.

    Buchholz is a frustrating player who has lost major parts of two of the last four seasons to injuries...but using his major league totals from 08 and 09 to make the case that he is injury-prone is misleading. One might as well say that Jackie Bradley can't stay on the field because he only played 37 games in the majors in 2013.

    [/QUOTE]

    How is it misleading? Its a fact, just as its a fact that Ellsbury is injury prone-without assigning blame. He misses a lot of time; thats his history. Why should the team offer him full time pay for part time work? Hell, I would have loved to work part time and get a full salary when I was in the work force. I think he is probably worth what he will make in 2014, but when his contract comes up for renegotiation his absence from work needs to be taken into consideration if this pattern continues.

    [/QUOTE]
    Maybe it 'needs' to be, but if history means anything it's not going to be.  Has anyone noticed what "brittle"  Ellsbury just signed for??

    [/QUOTE]

    I think most people here believe that the Ellsbury contract is absurd. Even his most ardent supporters here, or at least some of them such as SP, think the kind of contract he got was out of line with his true value. You didn't see the Red Sox making that kind of offer, fortunately. They were smarter than that. And if Buchholz cannot solve his injury issues he will also be offered a contract commensurate with his real value to the team when it comes up for renegotiation.

    [/QUOTE]
    I'd be the first to agree that the Ellsbury contract is absurd.  As much as I enjoyed watching they guy and as much as I appreciate what he brought to the team there's NO WAY I'd want the Sox paying him what the Yankees are. 

    However, his contract does reinforce the point that there are GM's who will be optimistic and believe that those years in which he was injured were anomalies and they'll offer big money in the hope that those years don't happen again.  The same thing will happen with Buchholz.

    [/QUOTE]


    I wanted Ellsbury but I drew the line @ 6/110; an I figured the first 3 years would be great and the next 3 the contract wouldn't really be worth it...the yankees will regret that contract beginning in year 3.........But you can not compare Day to Day Clay to Ellsbury.  Day to Day Clay hasn't had nearly the career that Ellsbury has had.  And the injuries have been completely different; I'd have to believe the being slammed by Adrian Beltre is just a tad different than tweaking your neck whilst sleep with a 10 pound baby.........

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As the saying goes, "everything is for sale"...or in the case of Buchholz, available for trade. Its all based on what we could get back for him. I doubt very much we could get more in return than he is worth, especially given the amount of money he will be making. So I say we ask around but accept only a dumptruck full of talent in return for him. When his contract comes up his MIA history can be addressed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily Pumps.  When his contract comes up he's a free agent, like Ellsbury.  Any word on how bad Ellsbury's injury history hurt him with his new deal? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said earlier HFX, if another GM wants to handcuff his franchise by paying a FA an outrageous sum, let him have at it. Thats not the way to build a winning team. Great for Ellsbury; bad for the Yankees. When I am saying that Buchholtz's MIA problems need to be addressed at contract time, I mean that OUR team needs to address it realistically. If a dunce of a GM wants to go Ellsbury for him, we move up in the power rankings.

    [/QUOTE]

    Seriously?  You think that Ellsbury going from Boston to New York and JBJ taking Ellsbury's place moves Boston UP in the power rankings?  And you think that moving Buch and replacing him with someone else would move Boston up again? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that our LONG TERM outlook is better, yes. The Yankees made a mistake by offering Ellsbury an outrageous (by your own admission) contract. That kind of thing is generally punished. Part of the reason the Yankees finished where they did relative to us this year is their long term commitments. Stupidity is generally punished. Either you believe that Ellsbury's contract was fair or you don't. If you believe that it was a mistake then the logical conclusion is that the team that did that deal is weakened by virtue of their mistake, and that other the other teams rise in power relative to the team that made the error, at least in the long term. If it was a great deal then the team that made the deal is better off. But by your own admission the contract was absurd.

     If we can get more than we give up for Buchholz then yes, we do move up in the power rankings. Thats my point.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe that any thinking person would be confident that the Yankees were a better 2014 team the day after they signed Ellsbury.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bill-806's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Clay is a strange guy to say the least ...... Not sure if anybody in charge knows what makes Clay TICK ........  What say you ????

    [/QUOTE]


    And replace him with who?

    [/QUOTE]


    We have a bingo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to billge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And you know strange. He was 12 and 1.  Lets trade him and get someone better Sun over yard arm at Fantasy Island.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes. 12-1. In a grand total of 108 innings. He is averaging about 120 innings per year over the six years he has been with the team for any length of time.Here is another guy like Ellsbury: great when he is in the lineup, but not in the lineup enough to qualify as a full time player. Issues like this get addressed when his contract comes up. I would keep him, but if he cannot demonstrate that he is a 200+ IP per year pitcher very soon then he should not be paid like one.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He spent limited time in the majors in 2008-09 because he was not ready and was sent back to Pawtucket for about a year. Combined between MLB and the minors, he threw 134.2 innings over 26 starts in '08 and 191 over 32 starts in '09.

    Buchholz is a frustrating player who has lost major parts of two of the last four seasons to injuries...but using his major league totals from 08 and 09 to make the case that he is injury-prone is misleading. One might as well say that Jackie Bradley can't stay on the field because he only played 37 games in the majors in 2013.

    [/QUOTE]

    How is it misleading? Its a fact, just as its a fact that Ellsbury is injury prone-without assigning blame. He misses a lot of time; thats his history. Why should the team offer him full time pay for part time work? Hell, I would have loved to work part time and get a full salary when I was in the work force. I think he is probably worth what he will make in 2014, but when his contract comes up for renegotiation his absence from work needs to be taken into consideration if this pattern continues.

    [/QUOTE]
    Maybe it 'needs' to be, but if history means anything it's not going to be.  Has anyone noticed what "brittle"  Ellsbury just signed for??

    [/QUOTE]

    I think most people here believe that the Ellsbury contract is absurd. Even his most ardent supporters here, or at least some of them such as SP, think the kind of contract he got was out of line with his true value. You didn't see the Red Sox making that kind of offer, fortunately. They were smarter than that. And if Buchholz cannot solve his injury issues he will also be offered a contract commensurate with his real value to the team when it comes up for renegotiation.

    [/QUOTE]
    I'd be the first to agree that the Ellsbury contract is absurd.  As much as I enjoyed watching they guy and as much as I appreciate what he brought to the team there's NO WAY I'd want the Sox paying him what the Yankees are. 

    However, his contract does reinforce the point that there are GM's who will be optimistic and believe that those years in which he was injured were anomalies and they'll offer big money in the hope that those years don't happen again.  The same thing will happen with Buchholz.

    [/QUOTE]


    I wanted Ellsbury but I drew the line @ 6/110; an I figured the first 3 years would be great and the next 3 the contract wouldn't really be worth it...the yankees will regret that contract beginning in year 3.........But you can not compare Day to Day Clay to Ellsbury.  Day to Day Clay hasn't had nearly the career that Ellsbury has had.  And the injuries have been completely different; I'd have to believe the being slammed by Adrian Beltre is just a tad different than tweaking your neck whilst sleep with a 10 pound baby.........

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with everything there^^^^ but none of it refutes what I said earlier, [cut and pasted]

    "...that there are GM's who will be optimistic and believe that those years in which he was injured were anomalies and they'll offer big money in the hope that those years don't happen again.  The same thing will happen with Buchholz."

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I can see the BDC braintrust is dimming over the winter meetings.....

    Let's please recall Billy from his impromptu trip down south!!!

     

    No whispering in BC's ear while you're skulking around down there Billy!

     

    [/QUOTE]And to this day, there has been zero mention to what the ACTUAL CAUSE/PROBLEM was for Clay's 3 month work stopage???   Just saying !!


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

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to Bill-806's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I can see the BDC braintrust is dimming over the winter meetings.....

    Let's please recall Billy from his impromptu trip down south!!!

     

    No whispering in BC's ear while you're skulking around down there Billy!

     

    [/QUOTE]And to this day, there has been zero mention to what the ACTUAL CAUSE/PROBLEM was for Clay's 3 month work stopage???   Just saying !!


    [/QUOTE]

    It does concern me as well to a very large degree that they were never ever able to find the problem.  That tells me that it can and will likely happnen again.  He was showing that he was injured during the playoffs for sure after he had three months off... I am not sitting here very comfortable.

    I agree with most of the posters on here that we should keep Clay this year.  I was happy to play devil's advocate, but when it all boils down to it... I will take clay with 100 innings at his salary vs. Dempster at double the salary for twice as many innings.

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

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As the saying goes, "everything is for sale"...or in the case of Buchholz, available for trade. Its all based on what we could get back for him. I doubt very much we could get more in return than he is worth, especially given the amount of money he will be making. So I say we ask around but accept only a dumptruck full of talent in return for him. When his contract comes up his MIA history can be addressed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily Pumps.  When his contract comes up he's a free agent, like Ellsbury.  Any word on how bad Ellsbury's injury history hurt him with his new deal? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said earlier HFX, if another GM wants to handcuff his franchise by paying a FA an outrageous sum, let him have at it. Thats not the way to build a winning team. Great for Ellsbury; bad for the Yankees. When I am saying that Buchholtz's MIA problems need to be addressed at contract time, I mean that OUR team needs to address it realistically. If a dunce of a GM wants to go Ellsbury for him, we move up in the power rankings.

    [/QUOTE]

    Seriously?  You think that Ellsbury going from Boston to New York and JBJ taking Ellsbury's place moves Boston UP in the power rankings?  And you think that moving Buch and replacing him with someone else would move Boston up again? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that our LONG TERM outlook is better, yes. The Yankees made a mistake by offering Ellsbury an outrageous (by your own admission) contract. That kind of thing is generally punished. Part of the reason the Yankees finished where they did relative to us this year is their long term commitments. Stupidity is generally punished. Either you believe that Ellsbury's contract was fair or you don't. If you believe that it was a mistake then the logical conclusion is that the team that did that deal is weakened by virtue of their mistake, and that other the other teams rise in power relative to the team that made the error, at least in the long term. If it was a great deal then the team that made the deal is better off. But by your own admission the contract was absurd.

     If we can get more than we give up for Buchholz then yes, we do move up in the power rankings. Thats my point.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe that any thinking person would be confident that the Yankees were a better 2014 team the day after they signed Ellsbury.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    But this occured AFTER they lost Cano, Rivera, P.E.Dittee not to mention that Granderson became a Free Agent and Alex Rod. may not play any games in 2014..........

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As the saying goes, "everything is for sale"...or in the case of Buchholz, available for trade. Its all based on what we could get back for him. I doubt very much we could get more in return than he is worth, especially given the amount of money he will be making. So I say we ask around but accept only a dumptruck full of talent in return for him. When his contract comes up his MIA history can be addressed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily Pumps.  When his contract comes up he's a free agent, like Ellsbury.  Any word on how bad Ellsbury's injury history hurt him with his new deal? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said earlier HFX, if another GM wants to handcuff his franchise by paying a FA an outrageous sum, let him have at it. Thats not the way to build a winning team. Great for Ellsbury; bad for the Yankees. When I am saying that Buchholtz's MIA problems need to be addressed at contract time, I mean that OUR team needs to address it realistically. If a dunce of a GM wants to go Ellsbury for him, we move up in the power rankings.

    [/QUOTE]

    Seriously?  You think that Ellsbury going from Boston to New York and JBJ taking Ellsbury's place moves Boston UP in the power rankings?  And you think that moving Buch and replacing him with someone else would move Boston up again? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that our LONG TERM outlook is better, yes. The Yankees made a mistake by offering Ellsbury an outrageous (by your own admission) contract. That kind of thing is generally punished. Part of the reason the Yankees finished where they did relative to us this year is their long term commitments. Stupidity is generally punished. Either you believe that Ellsbury's contract was fair or you don't. If you believe that it was a mistake then the logical conclusion is that the team that did that deal is weakened by virtue of their mistake, and that other the other teams rise in power relative to the team that made the error, at least in the long term. If it was a great deal then the team that made the deal is better off. But by your own admission the contract was absurd.

     If we can get more than we give up for Buchholz then yes, we do move up in the power rankings. Thats my point.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe that any thinking person would be confident that the Yankees were a better 2014 team the day after they signed Ellsbury.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    True.

    But, like the 2012 vs 2013 version of the Sox, saying they're "better" is setting a pretty low bar.

    Are the Yankees able to compete for the division yet?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As the saying goes, "everything is for sale"...or in the case of Buchholz, available for trade. Its all based on what we could get back for him. I doubt very much we could get more in return than he is worth, especially given the amount of money he will be making. So I say we ask around but accept only a dumptruck full of talent in return for him. When his contract comes up his MIA history can be addressed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily Pumps.  When his contract comes up he's a free agent, like Ellsbury.  Any word on how bad Ellsbury's injury history hurt him with his new deal? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said earlier HFX, if another GM wants to handcuff his franchise by paying a FA an outrageous sum, let him have at it. Thats not the way to build a winning team. Great for Ellsbury; bad for the Yankees. When I am saying that Buchholtz's MIA problems need to be addressed at contract time, I mean that OUR team needs to address it realistically. If a dunce of a GM wants to go Ellsbury for him, we move up in the power rankings.

    [/QUOTE]

    Seriously?  You think that Ellsbury going from Boston to New York and JBJ taking Ellsbury's place moves Boston UP in the power rankings?  And you think that moving Buch and replacing him with someone else would move Boston up again? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that our LONG TERM outlook is better, yes. The Yankees made a mistake by offering Ellsbury an outrageous (by your own admission) contract. That kind of thing is generally punished. Part of the reason the Yankees finished where they did relative to us this year is their long term commitments. Stupidity is generally punished. Either you believe that Ellsbury's contract was fair or you don't. If you believe that it was a mistake then the logical conclusion is that the team that did that deal is weakened by virtue of their mistake, and that other the other teams rise in power relative to the team that made the error, at least in the long term. If it was a great deal then the team that made the deal is better off. But by your own admission the contract was absurd.

     If we can get more than we give up for Buchholz then yes, we do move up in the power rankings. Thats my point.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe that any thinking person would be confident that the Yankees were a better 2014 team the day after they signed Ellsbury.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    True.

    But, like the 2012 vs 2013 version of the Sox, saying they're "better" is setting a pretty low bar.

    Are the Yankees able to compete for the division yet?

    [/QUOTE]

    With their pitching staff??  I don't see that happening.  It kinda brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?  :-)

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

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe that any thinking person would be confident that the Yankees were a better 2014 team the day after they signed Ellsbury.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    True.

    But, like the 2012 vs 2013 version of the Sox, saying they're "better" is setting a pretty low bar.

    Are the Yankees able to compete for the division yet?

    [/QUOTE]

    With their pitching staff??  I don't see that happening.  It kinda brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?  :-)

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL

    Yeah, I'm all choked up about it.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    wait....what?  bill you have me so confused.  Clay is white.

     

    in my mind nobody is off limits for trade discussion.  but if Ben were to do this, he better be getting back something very, very, very good in return.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to Bill-806's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I can see the BDC braintrust is dimming over the winter meetings.....

    Let's please recall Billy from his impromptu trip down south!!!

     

    No whispering in BC's ear while you're skulking around down there Billy!

     

    [/QUOTE]And to this day, there has been zero mention to what the ACTUAL CAUSE/PROBLEM was for Clay's 3 month work stopage???   Just saying !!


    [/QUOTE]


    Bursitis in his shoulder. It was said a number of times Bill.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to MadMc1944's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As the saying goes, "everything is for sale"...or in the case of Buchholz, available for trade. Its all based on what we could get back for him. I doubt very much we could get more in return than he is worth, especially given the amount of money he will be making. So I say we ask around but accept only a dumptruck full of talent in return for him. When his contract comes up his MIA history can be addressed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily Pumps.  When his contract comes up he's a free agent, like Ellsbury.  Any word on how bad Ellsbury's injury history hurt him with his new deal? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said earlier HFX, if another GM wants to handcuff his franchise by paying a FA an outrageous sum, let him have at it. Thats not the way to build a winning team. Great for Ellsbury; bad for the Yankees. When I am saying that Buchholtz's MIA problems need to be addressed at contract time, I mean that OUR team needs to address it realistically. If a dunce of a GM wants to go Ellsbury for him, we move up in the power rankings.

    [/QUOTE]

    Seriously?  You think that Ellsbury going from Boston to New York and JBJ taking Ellsbury's place moves Boston UP in the power rankings?  And you think that moving Buch and replacing him with someone else would move Boston up again? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that our LONG TERM outlook is better, yes. The Yankees made a mistake by offering Ellsbury an outrageous (by your own admission) contract. That kind of thing is generally punished. Part of the reason the Yankees finished where they did relative to us this year is their long term commitments. Stupidity is generally punished. Either you believe that Ellsbury's contract was fair or you don't. If you believe that it was a mistake then the logical conclusion is that the team that did that deal is weakened by virtue of their mistake, and that other the other teams rise in power relative to the team that made the error, at least in the long term. If it was a great deal then the team that made the deal is better off. But by your own admission the contract was absurd.

     If we can get more than we give up for Buchholz then yes, we do move up in the power rankings. Thats my point.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pumpsie---the pimary reason the Yankees ended rup where they did was because of injuries. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Not buying the injury excuse. Yes, the Yankees had some injuries, but so did every other team. The Sox lost our best pitcher for months and won a ring with him still not right. We lost our two closers (and found another one); Miller was lost for the season; Morales missed a lot of time; Vic missed time as did Ellsbury and others (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/teams/boston-red-sox/injuries.html). While the NYY injury report is impressive (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/teams/new-york-yankees/injuries.html) they simply did not have the organizational depth to survive their injuries and succeed. We did. That is the difference IMO.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As the saying goes, "everything is for sale"...or in the case of Buchholz, available for trade. Its all based on what we could get back for him. I doubt very much we could get more in return than he is worth, especially given the amount of money he will be making. So I say we ask around but accept only a dumptruck full of talent in return for him. When his contract comes up his MIA history can be addressed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily Pumps.  When his contract comes up he's a free agent, like Ellsbury.  Any word on how bad Ellsbury's injury history hurt him with his new deal? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said earlier HFX, if another GM wants to handcuff his franchise by paying a FA an outrageous sum, let him have at it. Thats not the way to build a winning team. Great for Ellsbury; bad for the Yankees. When I am saying that Buchholtz's MIA problems need to be addressed at contract time, I mean that OUR team needs to address it realistically. If a dunce of a GM wants to go Ellsbury for him, we move up in the power rankings.

    [/QUOTE]

    The problem will be that you want to pay Ellsbury based on the fact that he pitches only 2/3 as much as the top pitchers.  And I think that is not unreasonable.

    But his response will be, that since his ERA+ is probably in the top-10 in BB over the past 4 years, that he'll take the 2/3, but the base has to be like he was a top-10 pitcher.

    [/QUOTE]

    Presumably you mean Buchholz, since Ellsbury does not pitch well. I have no problem starting CB at a top 10 ERA+ pitcher then downgrading his salary offer to 2/3 of that number. Seems fair to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    So you're suggesting that I need to start typing the correct names in my posts?

    [/QUOTE]

    Why start now?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MadMc1944's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As the saying goes, "everything is for sale"...or in the case of Buchholz, available for trade. Its all based on what we could get back for him. I doubt very much we could get more in return than he is worth, especially given the amount of money he will be making. So I say we ask around but accept only a dumptruck full of talent in return for him. When his contract comes up his MIA history can be addressed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily Pumps.  When his contract comes up he's a free agent, like Ellsbury.  Any word on how bad Ellsbury's injury history hurt him with his new deal? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said earlier HFX, if another GM wants to handcuff his franchise by paying a FA an outrageous sum, let him have at it. Thats not the way to build a winning team. Great for Ellsbury; bad for the Yankees. When I am saying that Buchholtz's MIA problems need to be addressed at contract time, I mean that OUR team needs to address it realistically. If a dunce of a GM wants to go Ellsbury for him, we move up in the power rankings.

    [/QUOTE]

    Seriously?  You think that Ellsbury going from Boston to New York and JBJ taking Ellsbury's place moves Boston UP in the power rankings?  And you think that moving Buch and replacing him with someone else would move Boston up again? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that our LONG TERM outlook is better, yes. The Yankees made a mistake by offering Ellsbury an outrageous (by your own admission) contract. That kind of thing is generally punished. Part of the reason the Yankees finished where they did relative to us this year is their long term commitments. Stupidity is generally punished. Either you believe that Ellsbury's contract was fair or you don't. If you believe that it was a mistake then the logical conclusion is that the team that did that deal is weakened by virtue of their mistake, and that other the other teams rise in power relative to the team that made the error, at least in the long term. If it was a great deal then the team that made the deal is better off. But by your own admission the contract was absurd.

     If we can get more than we give up for Buchholz then yes, we do move up in the power rankings. Thats my point.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pumpsie---the pimary reason the Yankees ended rup where they did was because of injuries. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Not buying the injury excuse. Yes, the Yankees had some injuries, but so did every other team. The Sox lost our best pitcher for months and won a ring with him still not right. We lost our two closers (and found another one); Miller was lost for the season; Morales missed a lot of time; Vic missed time as did Ellsbury and others (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/teams/boston-red-sox/injuries.html). While the NYY injury report is impressive (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/teams/new-york-yankees/injuries.html) they simply did not have the organizational depth to survive their injuries and succeed. We did. That is the difference IMO.

    [/QUOTE]

    100% hit the nail on the head PG...Thats why these minor signings are so important

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As the saying goes, "everything is for sale"...or in the case of Buchholz, available for trade. Its all based on what we could get back for him. I doubt very much we could get more in return than he is worth, especially given the amount of money he will be making. So I say we ask around but accept only a dumptruck full of talent in return for him. When his contract comes up his MIA history can be addressed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily Pumps.  When his contract comes up he's a free agent, like Ellsbury.  Any word on how bad Ellsbury's injury history hurt him with his new deal? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said earlier HFX, if another GM wants to handcuff his franchise by paying a FA an outrageous sum, let him have at it. Thats not the way to build a winning team. Great for Ellsbury; bad for the Yankees. When I am saying that Buchholtz's MIA problems need to be addressed at contract time, I mean that OUR team needs to address it realistically. If a dunce of a GM wants to go Ellsbury for him, we move up in the power rankings.

    [/QUOTE]

    Seriously?  You think that Ellsbury going from Boston to New York and JBJ taking Ellsbury's place moves Boston UP in the power rankings?  And you think that moving Buch and replacing him with someone else would move Boston up again? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that our LONG TERM outlook is better, yes. The Yankees made a mistake by offering Ellsbury an outrageous (by your own admission) contract. That kind of thing is generally punished. Part of the reason the Yankees finished where they did relative to us this year is their long term commitments. Stupidity is generally punished. Either you believe that Ellsbury's contract was fair or you don't. If you believe that it was a mistake then the logical conclusion is that the team that did that deal is weakened by virtue of their mistake, and that other the other teams rise in power relative to the team that made the error, at least in the long term. If it was a great deal then the team that made the deal is better off. But by your own admission the contract was absurd.

     If we can get more than we give up for Buchholz then yes, we do move up in the power rankings. Thats my point.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe that any thinking person would be confident that the Yankees were a better 2014 team the day after they signed Ellsbury.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't forget that the addition of Ellsbury did not occur in a vacumn: they lost Granderson, their starting CF and substituted Ellsbury. Granderson is a very good player with a career OPS higher than Ellsbury, and a better arm in CF. The Yankees are probably marginally better with Ellsbury, but their franchise will suffer because they made a mistake in handing out that much money to one player (assuming they intend to get under the LT limit). Its that much less they can spend on pitching, which is their real need. And as Ellsbury ages the blunder will hurt them more and more. Mistakes like this generally punish a franchise over time. Recent baseball history is littered with examples of long term high dollar contracts that were not cost effective. Fortunately, the Yankees have not learned their lesson yet.

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

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    Agree.  Hope ARod comes back. They can have a high paid geriatric section in the clubhouse, walled off from the little people.

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

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    No. Thats my one word answer.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to billge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Agree.  Hope ARod comes back. They can have a high paid geriatric section in the clubhouse, walled off from the little people.

    [/QUOTE]


    If Arod doesnt get the full suspension of 200+ games, and say its less than 162, What money would count against the LT? Does he sit, say for 150 games without pay or does the $$ still count against the LT?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to billge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Agree.  Hope ARod comes back. They can have a high paid geriatric section in the clubhouse, walled off from the little people.

    [/QUOTE]


    If Arod doesnt get the full suspension of 200+ games, and say its less than 162, What money would count against the LT? Does he sit, say for 150 games without pay or does the $$ still count against the LT?

    [/QUOTE]

    I know that if he doesn't play at all he won't be paid this year, but even if that happens, the Yankees will be stuck with his salary again in 2015 and, I think, 2016. So they cannot go out and sign anyone who will cost a lot of money for more than one year if they plan to get under the LT limit.

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

    Re: Should BEN look to move Clay Buchholz ??????

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know that if he doesn't play at all he won't be paid this year, but even if that happens, the Yankees will be stuck with his salary again in 2015 and, I think, 2016.

    [/QUOTE]

    Keep going...to 2017.Laughing It was a 10 year deal signed after 2007.  Remember how he announced his opt-out during the World Series between us and Colorado.

     

     

Share