Wakefield to the DL

I heard on the radio that the Sox need to fill two spots … Zink and Pauley?

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Aug 10, 2008 3:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pauley is awful

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Aug 10, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why is Pauley awful?

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Aug 10, 2008 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because he has bad stuff

And can’t get anyone out in the majors.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Aug 10, 2008 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

he has bad stuff. He’s got a low 90’s fastball, a good changeup, and a good curveball. He’s got better stuff than more than a few guys in the majors right now. It justs seems like whenever he’s called up to pitch in the majors, he can never put it together. I really have no idea what the problem is, if it’s mental or something, but i wouldn’t blame it on lack of stuff.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 10, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

At best, he is a # 5 starter

Here are Pauley’s career minor league numbers:

(172G/169 GS) 54-51 3.91 ERA 1.35 WHIP

Those aren’t great numbers. He is 25-years old now, and having his best minor league season: 12-3 3.39 ERA 1.30 WHIP. He is a low-rated prospect, who probably isn’t in the Sox’ long-term plans.

Hansack isn’t much either. He is 30, and having a worse year than Pauley. Their career minor league numbers are similar:

(110G/87 GS) 36-33 3.78 ERA 1.24 WHIP

In contrast, Bowden (a legit prospect) has pretty good numbers.

(77G/75 GS) 29-18 3.14 ERA 1.15 WHIP

While Bowden projects to be much better than Hansack or Pauley, he is only 21-years old and has only just been called up to Triple-A. We’ll probably see him out of the pen in September.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Aug 10, 2008 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I’m not disputing the fact that he’s a bad pitcher. He definitely is not major league quality. All I’m trying to say is that his stuff isn’t as terrible as you say. He and Hansack are the definition of AAAA players to me. But to say his stuff is terrible is just not true, because if you ever watch him, you’ll see he has stuff that could lead him to one day becoming a 5th starter if he somehow got his act together and figured out how to pitch in the major leagues. And about Bowden, I feel like he could step in right now and perform well in the pen or rotation for us. He’s probably going to be end up being a number 3 starter in the majors, and could potentially be better. What I love about him is that his command has always been so good for both his fastball and curveball since an early age, and for a pitcher to have that feel for pitching from an early age is a great sign.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 11, 2008 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Masterson

only pitched in Pawtucket when we sent him down from the majors. He came up from AA. Bowden seems to have even more poise then Masterson. I don’t think they will pitch him out of the pen, they will keep him going as a starter. There was always some debate on whether Masterson would be a starter or reliever, there isn’t that kind of debate with Bowden.

by drabidea on Aug 11, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Masterson will be a reliever, IMO because his throwing motion is so unconventional that it screws with batters.

He can go for 1+ innings in almost every game that a SP has trouble in(see yesterday’s game).

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm torn

I still haven’t fully decided on him yet. There are not many pitchers like him with the kind of stuff he has. I think because of the depth of our starting rotation and starting pitching prospects coming up, I would like Masterson to stay in the bullpen. We really need the help there.

It would also be nice to know at the end of the season his thoughts on starting vs relieving. He will have had substantial experience with both in the Majors at the end of the year. A happier player will be a more productive player.

by drabidea on Aug 11, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt

If Masterson stays with the Sox, he’s going to be a reliever next year. There really just isn’t a place for him in the rotation, so he’ll definitely relieve. The future is anyone’s guess. I could imagine him staying as the setup guy for Papelbon for the next few years, but I also could see him getting traded in the offseason either this year or next. I could envision a Masterson + smaller prospect for Teagarden trade occuring in the offseason. This is all just speculation, though

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 11, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In fairness

he did have one good start against the Yankees. 6/6/06 he went 6 and 2/3 giving up only 2 runs.*

Maybe Pauley is the anti-Christ. Went 6.66 innings on 6/6/06.

by 0157H7 on Aug 10, 2008 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can't see how he's worse than Devern Hansack

But I agree that he’s pretty bad.

It's the same old story. Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day.

by MerryGoByeBye on Aug 10, 2008 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey

Hansack once threw a no-hitter against the O’s, I believe.

by soxaholic on Aug 10, 2008 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah that was Buch :(

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 10, 2008 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hansack threw a 5-inning no-no

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Aug 10, 2008 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ohh... I didn't know that. My bad.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 10, 2008 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They need to stop pitching Buccholz

This kid is an automatic loss. I’ll take anyone else.

by ccthemovieman on Aug 10, 2008 4:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The weird thing about Buchholz

For me, anyways, is that whenever he pitches I always feel like he’s gonna win the game for us even though I secretly know that he’s an automatic loss. I think that I might just be a hopeless optimist, but even when watching him pitch I see his mid 90’s fastball and amazing curveball and change and think “this guy can’t be that bad, but somehow, he ALWAYS is.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 10, 2008 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hear you

Buchholz’s curve is so nasty that he can look awesome. The problems might be (I’m not his coach) that he doesn’t have that same confidence with his fastball so his mix isn’t as effective as it should be; he seems to get rattled fast, and when he hangs that curveball – look out. I wonder if that no-hitter last year isn’t the worst thing that could have happened to him and the Sox because he sure hasn’t lived up to that promise. Have the Sox rushed him because of that gem and injuries to other starters (Schilling, Colon)?

Maybe Clay needs to see a sports psychiatrist, that a lot of his problems are in his head. All I know is that he’s frustrating to watch and is getting worse, not better. Like all Sox fans, I still have very high hopes for him. I’m sure the Boston braintrust is trying to figure this out.

by ccthemovieman on Aug 11, 2008 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I realize this is off topic, but I got banned from DRaysBay for being "Troll"

I would appreciate if yall all went over there and told them to screw themselves. If you get banned, you can still read that blog, but no comments, fanposts/shots,etc. on that blog.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 10, 2008 11:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You probably got banned because the only reason you were over there was to criticize the Rays. Doing that kind of stuff is considered being a troll. Next time, you should try adding to their discussion in a constructive manner instead of just telling them that their team isn’t very good. Though you did use Pythagorean W-L and stuff, just going to a new blog and criticizing them is never a good thing to do. Stuff like this gives Red Sox fans a bad name. Just be a little nicer next time.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 11, 2008 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I talk to Rays fans at my school all the time in the same way and they don't shut me out of the conversation.

I was going to add my two cents to the Balldelli-Hinske-Gross-Crawford debate over who should start in RF/LF, but they banned me before I could. I couldn’t even respond to their accusations of being a bandwagoner.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I will no longer comment on DRaysBay, but will still read it from time to time, as I had done before.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Things you did at DRB:

1) Called an admin a moron after stating the Rays BaseRuns record (which actually agreed that the Rays had been lucky)
2) Signing up for two other accounts, including “can’t ban me fools”.
3) Calling everyone on the site a bandwagoner in your first comment and telling Rays fans to shut up and sit down.

by R.J. Anderson on Aug 11, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, I apologized and said I no longer want to comment on DRayBay. But if you want to go this way, fine by me.

I AM SORRY TO ALL OF THE OTHER RED SOX FANS WHO MAY NOT WANT TO READ THIS, BUT HE WENT TO FAR. PLEASE SKIP AHEAD TO THE NEXT UNRELATED COMMENT IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO READ THIS.
1) If you can not take being called a moron then you probably shouldn’t be running a blog about a team in a highly competitive division. (And you sound shocked that it agreed) I called you a moron because you called me a bandwagoner for living in Tampa and being a Sox fan. As I have said before, YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A FAN OF THE LOCAL TEAM. I am only 15 freaking years old and I don’t have a say in where I live, nor do my parents since we get moved by the same Air Force that you call yourself a fan of.
2) You may have noticed that the first account I signed up for was named “just a question” which the only purpose for that account, which I was going to delete almost immediately. I was asking why I got banned (which I took to mean permanently since nowhere does it say that I get banned for only five minutes the first time; look here: http://www.sbnation.com/guide/terms) and I was trying to answer your questions. The second account was more of a joke to show that you were willing to ban my entire network from your blog, not just my account.
3) Run a poll at a Rays game and ask them questions that only a fan of the team for more than a year or two would know the answer to. Questions like: name at least one steroid user to play for the Rays? (Jose Canseco if you don’t know) A large portion of the Rays’ fanbase is made up of people who only root for the local teams when they are winning, as is the Red Sox’ fanbase, the Yankees’, and most other sports teams. South Florida seems to have a larger number than most other areas of the country, as seen by the sudden rise in the number of USF fans last season.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wasnt finished, pressed wrong button.

The fact that you are arguing with a 15 year old is sad, dude. The fact that you banned me without allowing me to explain why I called you a moron is cowardly. And the fact that you came over to a blog for my team to post information that should have stayed public on DRaysBay is just plain wrong. Post my comments and the rest of comments that were deleted and you will gain back my respect but until then you are not a person worth talking to. A fan by the name of bobr, on the other hand, is someone who I would like to talk to because he made a valid point about 3rd order record, which I had not heard of until then. If you could please ask him to email me about that subject at the address I used to send an apology to you from, I would be pleased. Until then, leave me alone.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Can't ban me fools"? Really?

That’s just to funny to ban, I’d guess. :)

It's the same old story. Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day.

by MerryGoByeBye on Aug 11, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was actually You Can't Ban Me Fools

And I did it to see if he would ban my IP address which he did. Typical non-computer-knowledgeable person move, though. If I want to comment on that blog, all I have to do is change my IP address which is about as hard to do as pitching like Buch did yesterday.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It may be a choice between Hansack or Bowden

From boston.com:

Though the Red Sox have not released their Tuesday starter - it’s listed as TBA right now - there are options at Triple A.
While it’s unlikely that it would be either Charlie Zink or David Pauley, the two starters who have pitched the best for Pawtucket this season, it could be either Michael Bowden or Devern Hansack. Bowden is scheduled for tomorrow, while Hansack is on for Tuesday.

Zink pitched Friday; Pauley took the hill Saturday in the Futures at Fenway event.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Aug 11, 2008 7:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd be very surprised if it end up being someone other than Hansack

Extra Bases has Charlie Zink as a good possibility, but everything points toward being Devern. Unless they wanna test something.

It's the same old story. Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day.

by MerryGoByeBye on Aug 11, 2008 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bring up Bowden!!!!

I can’t wait any longer. I would also love to watch Zink pitch. I mean we have a knuckle ball catcher already.

by drabidea on Aug 11, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Zink could replace Buch's spot in the rotation and have Bowden in Wake's spot for a while.

When Wake returns, have him take over for Zink and move Zink to the bullpen. The best thing for Zink right now is a chance to be around Wake a lot, since Wake is having one of his best years. Wake could probably use someone else to help him experiment with the knuckler. Two heads are better than one.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t get why everyone’s so high on Bowden right now. he’s going to be a real good pitcher, no doubt. But he just got called up to Triple A a little over 2 weeks ago. He is still developing as a pitcher, and really only has 2 pitches that he can command, his curveball and fastball, and his changeup is still developing. He’s looked real good this year, but he’s not ready for the big leagues yet. He still needs development. I would love to be proven wrong and see Bowden come up and pitch great, but I’m pretty sure that’s not gonna happen.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 11, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

But Masterson didn’t look ready as well, and came up big for us. Bowden was always the better prospect, and while I can’t wait to see if he’ll end up being the better pitcher, he just might not be ready. But Bowden has a better FB than Buch, that’s for sure.

It's the same old story. Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day.

by MerryGoByeBye on Aug 11, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where did you hear that Bowden has a better fastball than Buch? As you know, Buchholz has got a 92-96 mph fastball with movement. Bowden, on the other hand, has an 88-94 mph fastball. While he normally sits at around 91-92 for an outing, there are outings where his velocity on his fastball is inconsistent, and that is never good, but is normal for a developing pitcher. Buchholz has definitely got the better fastball as far as speed and action on it. The good thing about Bowden though is that he has great command of his fastball, which is definitely a big boost over Buchholz. Stuffwise, though, Buchholz has got the edge over Bowden in the fastball department. I’m excited to see Bowden as well in the majors, if not this year then next, because he is going to be a good pitcher for years to come. I just don’t think this year is one of those years.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 11, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buchholz's fastball

is by far his worst pitch. He has no confidence using the FB and he cannot control the pitch so he relies on the off speed pitches and major league players sit on him.

by SoxAcumen on Aug 11, 2008 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have a point, but when talking strictly about pitches you have to realize that it is generally thought around baseball that command can be taught to a pitcher, while you can’t learn speed. I don’t mean to be rude by saying this, but it’s what I’ve heard from all sorts of people. By taking command out of the equation, Buchholz clearly has the better fastball, and if he can learn the command part of the equation, that fastball would be more effective than Bowden’s, simply because it is more overpowering. I understand what you mean, and agree completely that with no control his fastball isn’t as good as Bowden’s, but when Buchholz does have control of it, like in his no hitter last year, he;s downright, well, unhittable.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 11, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mostly true

however movement is another component in evaluating fastballs, and can be more valuable than velocity. There are relievers that throw harder than Jonathan Papelbon (Farnsworth for example), but his fastball is better because he combines velocity with crazy movement, making his heater nigh unhittable.

Buchholz’s fastball has decent velocity, but even when cranking it out at 95, he doesn’t usually have much movement. In the first inning against the ChiSox he threw some nasty 2-seamers that had great movement, but he quickly lost command of the pitch.

I’m not familiar with Bowden, but if he throws with better location and movement, he could have much better success than Buchholz.

by 0157H7 on Aug 12, 2008 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed and Disagreed

You do have me curious about the two pitchers. I went to Fangraphs, which has an extensive collection of pitch types, highly recomended. Clay has a faster fastball then Dice-K and Lester and obviously not as fast at Beckett’s. However, I think that command is most important when it comes to a fastball. There are pitchers who have made careers of low speed fastballs as long as they can put them in the right location (Moyer, Glavine, Maddux). It is obvious that they have other pitches to help deceive the batter but they also show that it isn’t all about speed. If Felix Hernandez threw his fastball (94.9 MPH) right down the middle, Major leagues are going to hit it.

Location is Key, so I would say Bowden at this point has a better fastball.

by drabidea on Aug 11, 2008 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buchholz's biggest problems

Are mechanics. He often changes his release point and his body position. Having a repeatable delivery is important for a pitcher’s control. He’ll work out the problems and be fine.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Aug 11, 2008 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If not, were stuck with one of the most overhyped busts since Pavano.

I would rather trade for someone who can take a hit to their ego and bounce back up and throw a f’n fastball for a strike.

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pavano’s a bust, but not because of mechanics. He was just hurt all the time. He was a Cy Young contender the year the Yankees signed him. He had nasty stuff, he just was so injured that it went away.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 11, 2008 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't comparing them because of mechanics.

I was comparing them because of Pavano’s career results and how Buch could end up.

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would be a mistake to trade Buchholz

He has nasty stuff. Before this May, anywhere from half to three-quarters of Red Sox fans would have been OK with trading Jon Lester.

Players develop at different speeds. Buchholz has a very high ceiling. I expect the Sox’ FO to be patient.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Aug 11, 2008 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Drugs speak

You listen.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 11, 2008 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lester

Lester has the “it”, you could see from the minute he took the mound. Buccholz has never, yes including the no-hitter, shown me what Masterson and Lester have.

Buchholz is the logical trade piece, he has more hype and people are enamored by his “potential.’

Anyone here saying that Buchholz will have better careers than Santana or CC? No. So why hold onto a piece that can get you what you NEED, and make a move in FA for CC.

Prospects are prospects thats all they are. Sox can win now make the moves now.

Again there are others players who have a far greater upside who the Sox can obtain with just $$$$, but a catcher is a priority.

What will everyone say when Buccholz turns out to be Bronson Arroyo without the cornrows?

IMO Masterson and Lowrie are the “untradeable” pieces bc they have handled the pressure and performed.

If not for the not hitter would anyone think Buchholz is as good as everyone seems to think he could possibly be?

No.

by SoxAcumen on Aug 11, 2008 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that the “it” you’re talking about is confidence, and you’re right, Buchholz does not have that right now. But a lack of confidence definitely does not equal becoming the next Bronson Arroyo. There is good reason for people to believe he could be great and to be enamored by his potential, have you ever watched him? He’s got some of the nastiest stuff I’ve seen in a LOOOONG time. I don’t quite understand the negativeness towards this kid. Yes, he has struggled this year. But you need to remember, he is a rookie and is adjusting to new mechanics while pitching on the big league level to hitters who will crush your mistakes. He may not be looking good now, but if he is able to get good command of that fastball, and I know that it is a big if but it is something that he can definitely do, he will be great in the big leagues. It’s simply about improving as a pitcher. It’s something Lester had to do, and Buchholz will do it too.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 11, 2008 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

CC is a free agent

He and Buch aren’t exactly mutually exclusive…

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Aug 12, 2008 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I don’t have the numbers here, so I might be talking crap. But Bowden FB clocks around 91 most of the time, and Buch does not reach 96 often enough (or ever). Both of them have Dice-K speed, which is low 90’s. However, Bowden’s FB sinks well, and he has way better control than Buch has. But I agree with you, with Drugs and with pretty much everyone here: Buch has better stuff, and if he keeps improving his FB he will be an ace before long.

It's the same old story. Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day.

by MerryGoByeBye on Aug 11, 2008 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude

Zink cannot be on the bullpen because Tek can’t catch the knuckler. Unless we’re getting rid of Tek, this will not happen.

It's the same old story. Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day.

by MerryGoByeBye on Aug 11, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't their another guy who does bullpen catching for the Sox?

I’ve seen him at games, but I don’t think he is a player.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He means he can't be a reliever

And yeah, the Sox bullpen catcher isn’t a player.

by soxaholic on Aug 11, 2008 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I see what you mean, but couldn't Cash be brought in as a defensive sub?

It’s not like we lose Tek’s bat.

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buchholz

Right now Buchholz looks like the pitcher that will be moved for a catcher. Buchholz just does not have, for lack of a better term, the ‘eye of the tiger”. Sox should of packaged him in a deal and got Santana.

Prospects are just prospects and Sox should of made a move when his stock was up and his value at maximum.

Deal Buchholz, get a catcher. Sign CC. Sox will still have a young staff and fill our most pressing empty spot, catcher.

Losing Wake hurts.

by SoxAcumen on Aug 11, 2008 6:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A major trade is always fun to imagine, but there are parts to this that could become facts.

Red Sox get: C Taylor Teagarden, CF Josh Hamilton
Rangers get: P Clay Bucholz, CF Coco Crisp, P Daniel Bard/Bryan Price/ and a B level prospect or two

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very unlikely.

You’re offering an A prospect, a light-hitting CF, a bullpen arm and a B prospect for a top slugger who also plays CF and a premier catching prospect. Not gonna happen. Even if we threw in Ellsbury.

by 0157H7 on Aug 11, 2008 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why can't ESPN make a trade machine for MLB?

It has been immensely popular with NBA fans and could work with baseball if you limit it to MLB-AA.

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 11, 2008 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because the whole reason there’s actually a trade machine for the NBA is that the NBA has rules about the amount of money being traded from team to team, and that a person only making 500,000 dollars can’t be traded for a person making 14 million. There are also things like the salary cap which also can affect trades. The whole point of the trade machine is to show users what trades are allowed in the NBA and what trades aren’t allowed. MLB has no such rules, so a trade machine would be pointless. In the MLB, you’re allowed to trade anyone for anyone, and all it needs is the commissioner’s approval, and the commissioner almost always gives his approval. It would be pointless.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 11, 2008 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking more along the lines of replacing the money rules with some sort of rankings rule

Like you have to trade two prospects ranked in the top 50 to get a player who is ranked in the top 25, etc.

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 12, 2008 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you saying

you want MLB to incorporate that rule, or just for ESPN to incorporate it? It would be extremely hard for ESPN to have a trade machine for baseball because different teams value different players so much differently. It would be very hard to determine if a team would accept a trade. It’s the same thing with basketball too. The basketball trade machine just says what trades could happen, not what trades teams would agree to. For example, the Celtics could trade Brian Scalabrine to the Trailblazers for Greg Oden, but Portland never would ACTUALLY agree to that. I guess you could make a machine that assigns value to different prospects and players and determines what trades would be fair, but it would be incredibly difficult because teams tend to overvalue their own players and prospects and fall in love with certain players, so some players have more value to some teams than to other teams.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 12, 2008 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I meant for a potential Trade Machine

and by Top 50, i meant in all of baseball

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 12, 2008 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

*as determined by Baseball Porspectus or something similar

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 12, 2008 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hamilton is probably

Untouchable after this season. But I like your thinkin… Buchholz for Teagarden or Ramirez + prospects or a reliever sound like the deal I would want. OR move Buchholz to Seattle for Clement + reliever.

by SoxAcumen on Aug 11, 2008 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, he is touchable by any team that wants him. From Cot's:

Josh Hamilton of
1 year/$396,830 (2008)

re-signed 2/15/08
award bonus: $10,000 for All Star selection
acquired in trade from Cincinnati 12/21/07
1 year/$0.38M (2007)
o signed 2/07
o acquired in trade from Chicago Cubs 12/06
o drafted # 3 from Tampa Bay in Rule 5 draft 12/06
sent outright to minors 11/05
suspended indefinitely 3/04 for violations of MLB substance abuse policy
drafted 1999 (1-1), $3.96M signing bonus
agent: Michael Moye
ML service: 1.000

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 12, 2008 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, he really isn't touchable.

Hamilton would be ridiculously expensive, to the point that most teams can’t afford him.
1) He’s hitting .303 / .367 / .554, with 28 HR, 2nd most in the AL.
2) He plays a marquee defensive position, CF. His fielding isn’t as good as Ellsbury or Crisp, but he still plays well.
3) He’s signed cheaply for several years before hitting arbitration.

He might’ve been worth Buchholz before this year, but now he’s worth a lot more (and Buch is worth less). A reasonable package might be Buchholz / Masterson, Lowrie / Lars Anderson, Ellsbury, and prospects. A trade for Hamilton would probably hurt the Sox more than help.

by 0157H7 on Aug 12, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just to clarify

by “expensive” I mean in trade. Most teams don’t have the talent to net a player of his caliber, although obviously they could afford his salary.

by 0157H7 on Aug 12, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't he a free agent after this year? Couldn't we simply sign him?

Unless I misunderstood Cot’s, and its not like we don’t have the money.

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 12, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

That one year contract is money paid to him in arbitration. The Rangers still have him under control for at least a couple more years. Look at Youk, Papelbon, and Ryan Howard. It’ll say they all signed one year contracts too. The contract just expresses the money given to them in arbitration, but they are still under team control for more years after that.

by aspeninthewindow on Aug 12, 2008 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ohhhhh... That explains a lot. Thanks

Don't question my choice of teams, or I will have to go all troll on you.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Aug 12, 2008 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

$300k is just above the major league minimum, so it’s not arbitration money. Hamilton was quite good last year (though not as good as he is now) and if he had hit arbitration he’d have been paid several million.

by 0157H7 on Aug 13, 2008 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs