Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Ryder Hesjedal Wins Giro d'Italia

John Lackey's Signing: The Potential Ripple Effect


In what can surely be considered an understatement; the Red Sox's recent off-season activity has the Major League Baseball community buzzing, namely the population that makes up 'Red Sox Nation.'

On Monday, following reports that discussions surrounding re-signing Jason Bay had soured, the Red Sox proceeded to sign the top available starting pitcher via free agency, John Lackey, to a 5-year deal. The arrival of the former Angels' ace in Boston has been dissected in a bevy of ways since news broke earlier today by nearly every media outlet, each offering their own unique opinion on the situation. Some suggest that Lackey represents a reallocation of the funds originally intended for Bay. However, I don't believe that there is enough emphasis being placed on the big picture as a result of the acquisition, and the subsequent sequence of events that may potentially follow.

Star-divide

While some may argue that because Jason Bay is no longer an option, the Red Sox may have simply taken their money and invested in another big ticket free agent instead. If that were the case, wouldn't it have been more intelligent to focus on someone like Matt Holliday or Adrian Beltre to help fill the holes that Boston has both defensively and offensively, rather than acquire a starting pitcher? While there's no denying that the depth in regards to the starting rotation was a point of emphasis for management heading into the off-season, it seems rather narrow-minded to use such a large sum of financial resources to fill that void while continuing to ignore the ones at third base and left field.

Is it possible that Mike Cameron is set to be Jason Bay's replacement, especially given the defensive upgrade he represents, and that they simply used the money that they saved by not going after Matt Holliday on the combination of Cameron and Lackey? Sure, it's not a farfetched theory by any means. However, after much deliberation on the topic, I have come to the conclusion that there may be more to the Red Sox's recent acquisitions than what is evident on the surface.

One piece of information that slipped through the cracks today, which is understandable given the more notable moves made, is that the Red Sox made a two year contract offer reportedly worth $15 million dollars to left-handed Cuban defector Aroldis Chapman. Chapman, a 21 year-old starting pitcher with a fastball that consistently touches triple-digits, could offer a bit of foreshadowing into the Red Sox's plan of action in relation to their void at third base.

The $80-85 million dollar contract awarded to Lackey is what originally made me look into the potential reasoning behind extending $15 million to Chapman who, like Lackey, is a starting pitcher. No, Chapman would not likely be added to the MLB-level rotation come opening day, but there are still some flags being raised by Boston's pursuit of the young talent. Why continue attempting to accrue starting pitching depth with a hole still evident at not only the third base position, but in the lineup as well?

Consider this; the addition of Lackey now gives Boston six viable options for their rotation, as it stands now, heading into 2010. With Beckett, Lester, Lackey, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, and Wakefield, a once seemingly questionable rotation has become more than formidable, arguably the best in baseball. Where does extending a $15 million dollar contract to a young, unproven, prospect-type pitcher make sense given the Red Sox's glaring needs elsewhere?

It would not only make sense, but it would actually appear rather brilliant in its creativeness, if the plan of action was to turn around and begin shopping the attractive young talent that is Clay Buchholz. Buchholz, known for his devastating arsenal of off-speed pitches as well as his limitless potential, seemingly finds himself immersed in nearly every trade discussion involving the Red Sox the last few years. So why stop now?

One reason that Theo Epstein has been reluctant to move Buchholz to this point is that it is difficult to find a young starting pitcher with that much potential without having to develop internally, as they did with Clay. This is where Aroldis Chapman becomes relevant to this discussion.

Matt Holliday had been the center of rumors regarding the Red Sox's planned route in the event that Bay could not be retained. However, recent reports (especially coming from Holliday's agent, Scott Boras) suggest that signing Holliday would require a deal exceeding that in which Jason Bay is commanding at the present time. Boras has been rather vocal in his opinion that Holliday is a more valuable asset than Bay to an interested team. Having said that, and assuming that Adrian Beltre is now out of this off-season's budget limit, it's hard to imagine that the Red Sox are left with many options to plug third base via free agency. It's also safe to assume that management is left unsatisfied with Cameron replacing Bay if it means that someone like Casey Kotchman is going to take over the first base duties, with Youkilis moving to third base in this scenario (also making the assumption that moving Varitek back behind the plate full-time, while shifting Youkilis to third and Victor Martinez to first, is not a realistic option).

All of this leads me to believe that the Red Sox next plan of action is to begin gauging interest from teams regarding the aforementioned Clay Buchholz.

With the potential signing of Aroldis Chapman, moving Clay Buchholz could become more justifiable to the Red Sox. Essentially, the Chapman signing may simply be a case of replacing one young pitching prospect with another, allowing Boston to utilize Buchholz's trade-appeal and acquire the corner infield-bat that they so desperately need.

San Diego could potentially be a player in any discussion pertaining to Buchholz. The Red Sox have discussed the availability of first baseman Adrian Gonzalez with the Padres recently, but to no avail, citing Boston's hesitation to move Buchholz as a main reason. Reports, prior to the Lackey signing, made it appear as though no progress was being made on that front. Padres general manager Jed Hoyer reportedly requested a combination of Buchholz and either Casey Kelly (a pitching prospect widely considered untouchable in such discussions) or outfielder Ryan Westmoreland.

One interesting aspect of negotiations is that Jason McLeod, a former Red Sox scouting director, is now employed by Hoyer. It has been said that both have a detailed understanding and admiration of the Boston system.

While the Red Sox still expected to retain Jason Bay, it was understandable for Epstein to be adverse to the idea of unloading Buchholz, especially given his opinion that the rotation (even with Buchholz) lacked depth. Also, because Bay was still an option at that point, the need for an offensive upgrade was slightly less glaring. With Bay and Holliday now out of the mix, and the potential signings of both Lackey and Chapman, the attention has to be redirected back to the original need for offense at one of the corner infield spots left vacant by Mike Lowell's departure (still pending). A platoon of Mike Cameron and Jeremy Hermida is probably not the caliber of replacement in left field that Boston entered the off-season with in mind, but acquiring someone such as Adrian Gonzalez would have to help alleviate any concerns regarding offensive potency that may still linger.

As I implied earlier, San Diego is very interested in Clay Buchholz, even going as far as insisting his presence in any potential package offered by Boston. If Chapman is signed, Buchholz immediately becomes more expendable, and Gonzalez that much more appealing. Boston's interest in Chapman has been evident for some time, is it possible now that his addition could represent the subtraction of Buchholz? Clay's availability has to increase exponentially in the event that the Red Sox land Chapman.

It is starting to appear as though Theo Epstein has been underestimated in his approach this off-season all along. His lack of activity seems to have directly corresponded with the progress made in re-signing Bay. As soon as the discussions began to break down, Theo started making moves. My feeling is that he has had this plan in his back pocket the whole time he was in talks with Bay and his representatives, and is only now beginning to deploy it.

One fact remains certain, Boston's needs a power-hitter to compliment their lineup following the departure of Jason Bay. With Cameron and Hermida joining J.D. Drew and Jacoby Ellsbury, completing a respectable core of outfielders, the most obvious place to fill that void remains at one of the corner infield spots.

It's hard to imagine a better solution than someone like Adrian Gonzalez.

Comment 61 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Another option

This one seems less likely than the one mentioned in the article, so I thought I’d relegate it to the comments section instead (especially with the article being 1500 words as it is).

Does anyone see a possibility that the Red Sox attempt to sweeten the deal that seems to be eroding with Texas by including Buchholz?

Clay is a native of Texas, immediately increasing his appeal, and the Red Sox could possibly test the waters on third baseman Michael Young. Buchholz/Lowell for Max Ramirez/Michael Young?

*I didn’t really check into the status of Young’s contract before suggesting this, nor do I remember hearing anything regarding his availability, so I could be way off here. Just throwing it out there…

by Logan Lietz on Dec 15, 2009 5:32 AM EST reply actions  

good thought

but if we threw in buchholz we would have to get a LOT more back than michael young. definitely one of their young studs like andrus or bourbon.

by revived0103 on Dec 15, 2009 6:27 AM EST up reply actions  

Not even enough

Michael Young/Max Ramierz for Lowell and Buchholz? Not even close to being enough. I wouldn’t do this trade even if Texas agreed to give the Sox 9mill.

Here’s a better option:
Assuming they can’t land Gonzo – Trade Buchholz and prospect (not both Kelley and Westmoreland) for M. Cabrera. The Tigers could use another starter and are desperate to cut more payroll. How does that sound?

by cthunder on Dec 15, 2009 6:45 AM EST up reply actions  

Love it.

As someone who has been high on the idea of bringing Cabrera to Boston this off-season, I’m surprised that I didn’t even have that thought enter my mind…

by Logan Lietz on Dec 15, 2009 7:39 AM EST up reply actions  

although...

I’m not sure we’d be equipt to take on Cabrera’s contract. Our payroll would be gigantic.

Gonzalez’s contract on the other hand is friendly for the next couple seasons, similar to Victor Martinez’s when we acquired him. Small salary this season followed by a club option the next for relatively the same bargain if I’m not mistaken…

by Logan Lietz on Dec 15, 2009 8:05 AM EST up reply actions  

exactly

no chance we take on cameron, Lackey, and Cabrera’s giant contract

by wolf9309 on Dec 15, 2009 9:15 AM EST up reply actions  

However

If we were to send Mike Lowell and Clay their way…
That might do it. The Tigers are locked into Cabrera for so long that they might well be willing to take on Lowell’s 1-year at 12 million to shed the rest and pick up Clay Buchholz. Assuming you toss in, say, Aroldis Chapman at a few million, and that puts the Red Sox still under the $170 million luxury tax limit that Theo talked about approaching but not exceeding.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 15, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Does it though?

When you add in the $10MM for player’s benefits it could certainly push us over the luxury tax limit. Fact it, we’re right around that limit at this point anyway, but I have a hard time believing they’re willing to spend $7MM or so on Kotchman/Hermida to be bench/platoon players when they’re so close to the limit.

DFA Beckett

by South Coast Ghost on Dec 15, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Do things like benefits count against a luxury tax?

And what are we talking about as far as “benefits” are concerned.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 16, 2009 12:11 AM EST up reply actions  

"benefits" are included

But I don’t have the union agreement so I’m not sure exactly what they consist of- since the numbers of payroll and payroll level for CBT always seem to add up, I’ve assumed that benefits were part of the value of a contract, but may be wrong.

by wolf9309 on Dec 16, 2009 9:59 AM EST up reply actions  

yup it's $10 million

this WEEI article has a pretty good overview of the Sox CBT
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2009/12/15/breaking-bank-look-red-sox-payroll-2010

Now our contracts this year don’t include as many incentives as last year, but to stay under the CBT, we still need to either keep Kotchman as our first baseman for the year of trade off a decent amount of salary. The numbers look tight enough that I can’t really imagine we don’t go over a bit- also the arb estimates in the WEEI article look somewhat conservative based on some others I’ve seen.

As it stands now, without losing salary, pretty much any acquisition will take us over the $170 million threshold.

by wolf9309 on Dec 16, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions  

Young has a huge contract

he gets 16M a year until 2013. I dont want any part of that contract. He is 33 and a bad fielder. The Rangers would be happy to let him go for free basically.

by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 15, 2009 6:49 AM EST up reply actions  

Exactly

Young is not someone the Sox should look at. Nor should they trade Buchholz for an old, expensive, poor defensive player.

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 15, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Bad thought

Young’s defense was quite horrid. I’d rather have Lowell & “keep” the 9 mil than trade him, paying his contract for Young.

"simul justus et peccator"

by cavman on Dec 15, 2009 8:43 AM EST up reply actions  

This would be a great move

Michael Young would be Ideal. Could play 3b SS and a great bat.

by Brian Daubach on Dec 15, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions  

No it wouldn't

Young can’t field any position and makes a ton of money.

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 15, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

If by “ideal”, you mean “horrendously terrible”, then +1.

"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw

by BTLove on Dec 15, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Nice article

good overview of the situation for those of us that don’t follow the team every day

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V

by Jeff Clark on Dec 15, 2009 7:03 AM EST reply actions  

Great work over at CelticsBlog and good to see you around here.

"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw

by BTLove on Dec 16, 2009 2:39 AM EST up reply actions  

I wonder if

Theo will try to get a “not available” catcher (Martin/Mcann) and then just move Victor full time to 1B, Youk to 3rd. That’s a scenario that is not talked about much.

Miguel Cabrera IS the solution to our problems.
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!

by gizmosandy on Dec 15, 2009 8:00 AM EST reply actions  

Possibly...

But I still get the impression that the Red Sox are praying Mauer remains available to them for next season.

by Logan Lietz on Dec 15, 2009 8:08 AM EST up reply actions  

I think the general mindset teams have

is Mauer is not going to be available, until the minute he actually hits FA. There’s a very good chance he re-signs with Minn (especially since they seem to be doing a decent job improving this offseason with what they have) and I don’t think many teams are short sighted enough to count on him being available.

by wolf9309 on Dec 15, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Lowrie could be an option

at 3rd base if he has a good spring. Would a platoon of Youk, Lowrie, Kotchman & Martinez be a horrible rotation at the corners? Not much HR power except with Victor, but plenty of extra base hits.
But if Lowrie, Kotchman & Clay go to San Diego, I think I could sleep well at night. But it sounds like they want another “can’t miss” prospect rather than MLB ready guys.

"simul justus et peccator"

by cavman on Dec 15, 2009 9:49 AM EST up reply actions  

If Lowrie is playing 3B the Lackey move was a complete waste

John Lackey is a great pitcher, but if a great hitter is not added to the line up the sox just wasted a ton of money to not improve at all.

by Brian Daubach on Dec 15, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Please no.

VMart belongs behind the plate. He is a stud compared to the average Catcher. He is only slightly above average first baseman.

His value at 1B is simply not good enough to put him there.

It would be better to put Kotchman at 1B and move Youk to 3B, if we don’t secure Beltre or A-Gon.

by mmmmm on Dec 15, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions  

SOX FEVER

Makes Sense To Me . Martin Could Probably Be Had From The Dodgers .

by Sox Fever on Dec 16, 2009 5:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe cuz I'm just a huge Buchholz fan...

But i’d much rather see us find a one or two year stop gap at third (or first, moving youk to third) and sign either Adrian Beltre, Russell Branyan, Adam LaRoche or Hank Blalock. Those all seem like perfectly fine options.

I’d even take signing Troy Glaus or Carlos Delgado instead of dealing away Buchholz.

by Justin_Bobo on Dec 15, 2009 8:07 AM EST reply actions  

Some of them are fine

I still love the Beltre idea and hope we can afford him, I love the defense first mentality.

-Branyan is old, injured, and really only had one good year.
-Blalock is extremely underwhelming, not worth moving Youk to third for.
-I love Laroche, but he wants a 3 year $30 mill contract, and for that money I’d rather have Beltre. It does seem a little odd that he hasn’t gotten talked about more, but again, him at first and youk at 3rd is a significant defensive downgrade over youk/Beltre and I don’t think his bat would make up for it.

Delgado and Glaus? I’d rather not have aging DH types who can’t hit as well as they used to manning our corners. It would just seem wrong to me to spend that much money on Lackey, Scutaro, and Cameron and then fill a corner with something inferior.

Gonzalez is better and cheaper than any of those players. Really I’m happy if we had him or if we had Beltre (probably given a choice I would take Beltre+Buchholz as opposed to Gonzales, but that may end up too expensive). LaRoche I wouldn’t hate, but the others I think are just poor options.

by wolf9309 on Dec 15, 2009 9:24 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes. A-Gon or Beltre or hold your cards.

My preference is that they get Beltre – allowing them field a wicked defensive team, with very good offense and also to keep Buchholz.

But I’d be okay trading Buch for A-Gon, so long as they don’t also throw Kelly in the deal. But that’s not my first choice here.

by mmmmm on Dec 15, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Another train of thought

One aspect of the Lackey signing that I don’t think I’ve seen discussed anywhere is the effect it might have on the Beckett extension talks. If Lackey is getting paid like this to be the #3, what does Beckett ask for? And are they simply going to pay both giant sums of money? Beckett’s great but that becomes a lot of money tied up in over-30 pitching. I’m not sure how I feel about that. What’s their next move there?

by eriatarka on Dec 15, 2009 8:40 AM EST reply actions  

Yup

Beckett is certainly effected by this.

I was actually going to mention that in response to the idea of acquiring Miguel Cabrera, that it would really make keeping Beckett next to impossible (not to mention a questionable move investing so much money in two 30+ year old pitchers, like you said).

Be interesting to see how this all plays out…

by Logan Lietz on Dec 15, 2009 8:46 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't see the Tigers moving Cabrera unless they get a sensational deal

They just dumped a good a mount of salary last week, and if they move Cabrera they really don’t have much left offensively to compete with.

That said if Jimmy L can manange him or if there is something off the field in additional to his contract perhaps he’s attainable.

But right now it seems like Cabrera would cost as much talent wise as Gonzo (though perhaps the Sox could get away with B level prospects with Detriot that they couldn’t with the Pads)

So at the end of the day, if you are the Sox and you have to give up talent, the how much more salary do you want to take on in addition to this?

If they make a move for Gonzo, they still reserve some funds for Mauer or whoever next off season. If they move for Cabrera, the hands become quite a bit more tied up.

by JonnyNYC on Dec 15, 2009 9:06 AM EST up reply actions  

yes he will cost a lot

probably is untradeable, because they drop $60 mill in payroll next year.

by wolf9309 on Dec 15, 2009 9:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Although

Beckett’s increase would be negated by the loss of Papi, Lowell, Lugo, etc., next year, and Drew the following year.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Dec 15, 2009 9:35 AM EST up reply actions  

as mentioned elsewhere, Becketts ultimate price tag

will depend on whether Cliff Lee and Halladay both sign extensions or not – thus taking them off the 2011 FA market and increasing Beckett’s relative worth. It looks like Halladay is going to do so with the Phillies. Not sure yet about Lee. If they both do, Beckett will be super duper duper expensive to keep.

by mmmmm on Dec 15, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Excellent Point

I hadn’t considered this aspect, but you’re absolutely right. Does Beckett get five years and $90m? That essentially doubles his salary ($10m to $18m), but it’s hard to see him going for less than that based on the Lackey signing. You have to figure Theo thought of this — I just hope the team is willing to shell out that much for its own ace given how much they just spent on the Angels’ ace.

by argo0 on Dec 15, 2009 9:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Doe it bother anyone that Cameron

is 37 years old. Haven’t we gone down that road already too many times?

by NG on Dec 15, 2009 9:28 AM EST reply actions  

Slightly

My guess is that Hermida sees a fair amount of at bats this year. Sort of a Cameron-heavy platoon — unless Hermida’s bat finally blossoms.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Dec 15, 2009 9:37 AM EST up reply actions  

No.

It’s a short-term signing, designed to be a bridge to Reddick, and there’s been no real indications that Cameron’s lost the ability to play defense, which is the Sox’s goal this year.

I’m more concerned that, right now, Lowrie would most likely be our starting 3B.

by lone1c on Dec 15, 2009 9:50 AM EST up reply actions  

4 year contract I'd worry

in the meantime, he is incredibly fit, plays almost every game, and has shown no real signs of declining the last few year. So I’m fine with him for a couple years.

by wolf9309 on Dec 15, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Nope

He’s a very gifted athlete and has no history of injuries…..Keeps himself in great physical shape

by BobZupcic on Dec 15, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

No.

First – its only a 2 year deal.

Second – if you have ever seen Cameron live, he is a physical freak and I expect a slow decline in his skills. He’s still wicked fast and strong enough to hit 20+ in Fenway. He has a very good arm and great defensive instincts. Sigh … if he could only hit for contact …

I expect his strikeout rate will also continue, unfortunately.

by mmmmm on Dec 15, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions  

sox fever

Sure Does ! What Direction Are We Going ? Don’t Like It At All !

by Sox Fever on Dec 16, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Chapman isn't the next Buchholz

He could be great, but there are enough red flags being raised about him (his real age, the mileage on his arm, control/mechanics) that he could be a complete bust as well. Now that he’s put it all together, Buchholz is as close to a sure thing as he can be. There’s no way that Theo’s counting on Chapman to give us that.

That being said, the decision to sign Lackey makes the Gonzalez trade possible. All the same, as an earlier OTM column documented, the dollars are really starting to add up. I’m not sure what the outer limit of the budget is, but I have to figure the team is approaching it.

It’s been an incredibly interesting off-season so far, and signs point to more ahead. Wow.

by argo0 on Dec 15, 2009 9:47 AM EST reply actions  

Chapman needs ALOT of work

I doubt he would be in the majors for at least a year, probably 2. He is unpolished and raw. Throws really hard, but good hitters get to him easy.

Guys like Chris Snelling were cranking this kid in the WBC.

ITs more likely that Chapman is similar to Tazawa. A young FA pitching prospect that the Sox dont have to waste a draft pick to get.

Im not one of the people who believe the Lackey signing has anything to do with AGon. Personally, I believe Theo just wanted to have the best rotation in baseball and Buchholz is valuable member of that rotation.

by SoxAcumen on Dec 15, 2009 10:14 AM EST reply actions  

+1

I also hope you’re right about Buchholz. With all the money the Sox are throwing around, they’ll need some good, cost controlled players like Buchholz.

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 15, 2009 10:17 AM EST up reply actions  

Also,

if we can’t resign Beckett and we trade away Buch this off-season, our 2011 rotation looks like:
Lester, Lackey, Dice-K… that’s it.

In the interest of long-term stability, I think the most likely scenario is that we hold on to both guys this year, and then let Beckett walk when his contract is up. As for 3B, we sign Beltre. This gives us arguably the best rotation and best defense in the Majors in 2010, with a good shot at making a WS run.

BTW, did anybody play that free agent predictions game on mlb.com? Idk about you, but I’m failing miserably.

by Schulz on Dec 15, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

Although we do have a few good arms coming up, including Kelley & Bowden.

But yeah, I’d rather keep Buchholz.

Sign Beltre, plz.

by mmmmm on Dec 15, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Bowden may be ready soon

but his ceiling is probably a significant downgrade from what we have right now. I don’t ultimately see him becoming a force on the Sox rotation. Kelly, yes, but hard to say how he’ll progress- maybe once he gets past A-ball, he’s got a ways to go.

by wolf9309 on Dec 15, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions  

true

the point was to show that there are arms in development for the 2-4 year horizon even if we did lose Buchholz to pickup A-Gon. If they get Chapman, that’s one more. So if any of those guys pan out – and even if Bowden is only a ‘4-5’ quality starter I’d consider that panning out – then that’s depth to tack on to whatever’s left of Lester + Lackey & Dice-K (assuming we lose Beckett).

I do think Bowden may represent more of a tradable chip, though. I think he projects to only a 4 or 5 on a team like the Red Sox, but he might be more valuable on another team. So maybe in a year or so, if we can get him a few showcase innings, we trade him for something – maybe a position prospect?

Still, as I’ve stated again and again, my preference is that we sign Beltre. That would give us an unbelievably good team for run prevention – solid starting pitching all around and great defense behind them. And no major prospects lost in the process.

by mmmmm on Dec 15, 2009 6:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Bowden = Ian Kennedy in my book

And by that, I mean that he does nothing for me.

by Schulz on Dec 15, 2009 9:16 PM EST up reply actions  

agreed

Chapman is so overhyped that everyone expects him to be a staff ace somewhere in 2010. If he signs with a decent team, he won’t be in the majors in 2010 except for maybe a september callup if he improves exceptionally and would not be a lock for the 2011 rotation. A lot like Tazawa, probably higher ceiling and more money, but same kind of deal.

by wolf9309 on Dec 15, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Bucholz trade

While the Lackey signing makes Bucholz more tradeable, I don’t think Chapman has much to do with the trade scenarios and likely a move/offer that stands alone since Bucholz is a rotation ready pitcher and Chapman is likely a year or more away, IF they get him. That being said, if Chapman projects to be a contributor within two seasons, the Sox may believe another, perhaps longer window pitcing prospect (Kelly?), is more expendable.

Bottom line – If the Sox can get Adrian Gonzalez for Bucholz and another top prospect – DO IT! I don’t see any stud hitters coming out of the farm system, and we know a Gonzalez type player would cost $150 million or more to acquire via free agency.

On the other hand, the Sox appear have the enviable ability to select and groom good young pitchers. The two most valuable commodities in baseball are (1) Top, “ace” pitchers (assuming you can/want to pay them); (2) top, young pitching prospects; every team wants them. So the Sox give up Bucholz and he turns out to be a stud in two years; they still have at least Lester, Lackey and Dice-K and can use the Beckett money on Beckett or another free agent starter.

by Scoop1981 on Dec 15, 2009 12:27 PM EST reply actions  

I don't think the Chapman signing has anything to do with this.

Chapman is a big, big question mark. Yes, he’s recieving a lot of money, but less than international free agents who have been considered “major league ready” (Dice-K, Contreras, Igawa). His impact in the majors would be in a few years, if at all. (For the record, I like this kind of high-risk, high-reward spending.)

Now, the speculation that Buchholz is more expendable does make sense. But this does not mean we will be in any rush to get rid of him. He is just too valuable as a low-cost, quality player, especially after these big-money moves. In fact, he is probably more valuable to the Sox now than before; basically, we will need more low-cost guys on this team if we are spending almost $20M on mediocre starting pitchers.

"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw

by BTLove on Dec 15, 2009 1:07 PM EST reply actions  

hmm

I don’t think this necessarily means that the Red Sox are in a rush to move Buchholz, I just think that with the money allocated the way it is now, it’s almost unrealistic that they go after any more big name free agents. Beltre is still asking for a lot of money, and the Mariners are still trying to resign him (especially because I don’t think they’re landing Bay), so his price will be driven upwards.

So where does that leave Boston in relation to their needs offensively? I’d say Gonzalez’s appeal, based on friendliness of contract and offensive prowess, are high enough that Theo will be willing to move Clay. Like I said, there aren’t a lot of options in regards to free agents right now that the Sox can afford, not anyone truly impactful anyway, which makes moving Buchholz for a BARGAIN like Gonzalez just seem like the most intelligent move at this point (especially given the Padres’ interest in Clay).

by Logan Lietz on Dec 15, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Over the Monster, an SB Nation community that delivers news and analysis while encouraging discussion regarding everything Boston Red Sox. OTM was founded Feb. 22, 2005.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 7
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 6

Recent FanPosts

010_small
OTM Simpson Analogues
Pedroialazers2_small
The possibility of trading Kevin Youkilis
Moar_bacon_small
PSA vs. OTM Fantasy Smackdown Update
Small
The Curious Case of Daniel Nava
Rsz_ashleyspade_small
Top Red Sox Prospects
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 5
Small
Mariano Rivera and TS Elliot and maybe Robert Frost
Small
Rivera has torn ACL

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Red_seat_small Ben Buchanan

Twitter_eb_2_small Marc Normandin

Authors

Lowrie__1234972975_0178-1_small lone1c

Jddrew_small gizmosandy

Pedoria1_small Mattsullivan

Baghead-1_small Matthew Kory

Photo__2__small BrendanOToole

Cee_small Cee Angi