Over the Monster: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: SB Nation interviews Jerome Bettis

Trading Clay Buchholz: Progressive or Nonsensical Ideology?

Clay Buchholz has always been an intriguing subject in relation to trade rumors involving the Boston Red Sox -- and 2009's off season has been no different. The young right-hander has been linked in trade discussions involving everyone from Roy Halladay to Hanley Ramirez during his time in Boston; the most recent discussions surrounding the San Diego Padres' Adrian Gonzalez.

Buchholz has certainly shown that he is more than capable of dominating on the major league level, most notably throwing a no-hitter against the Baltimore Orioles in September of 2007. However, Buchholz has also shown flashes of insecurity on the mound, specifically regarding the incorporation of his fastball into his repertoire, leading to some well-documented struggles during his still short-lived MLB career.

Every member of 'Red Sox Nation' holds a different opinion on whether Buchholz is best served on the trading block or permanently included as a part of the rotation, and it's a safe assumption that those within Boston's organization are like-minded in relation to this particular subject. If that weren't the case, then we'd have either seen Buchholz moved by now, or trade rumors involving the young pitcher would have ceased. However, as it stands, Buchholz continues to attract potential suitors -- and the Red Sox continue to listen.

Is it time that the Red Sox stop shopping Buchholz and finally allow him to settle into his role in Boston; or will his name continue to litter the rumor mill?

Star-divide

While obtaining a slugger such as Adrian Gonzalez or Miguel Cabrera via trade may seem like the obvious way to quiet rumblings of a potential offensive downfall for Boston in 2010, trading away a prospect of this caliber, whether now or in the future, should induce hesitation for a plethora of reasons.

First, and perhaps most prominent, is Buchholz's potential. His now-infamous no-hitter of 2007 aside, the denouement to his 2009 season in itself should help galvanize hope amongst the Red Sox faithful. Looking past the final two October starts against the Indians and Angels, Buchholz had a tremendously effective month of September. In six starts the young right-hander amassed a 4-1 record with an ERA of 2.87 in 37 2/3 innings pitched. Buchholz shined down the regular season's stretch-run, averaging nearly seven innings per outing. In fact, take away his final September start against Toronto, in which he surrendered seven earned runs (including five home runs) over just five innings, and Buchholz turned in a 4-0 record with a miniscule 1.39 ERA during the month. Compared to the adversity that Buchholz created for himself in previous seasons, 2009 was a giant step forward in Clay's quest for consistency.

Another reason for hesitancy is the importance placed on his position. The most influencial individual on the field in any given game is the starting pitcher, and not surprisingly, that same spot is one of the most difficult to fill with an impact player. Top of the rotation starters that are developed within their team's system are rare in the world of professional baseball, and Buchholz has the potential to be one of said rarities; a fact not lost on general manager Theo Epstein. Despite the fact that he has shown on several occasions that he isn't adverse to struggling at the major league level, the position that he plays in addition to the potential displayed in his few years in the MLB keeps him among one of the most appealing names in Red Sox trade discussions, and with good reason.

The Red Sox, Epstein in particular, have always expressed their devotion towards the continuation of the development of Buchholz -- even during his shakiest of stretches (on and off the field). It is in this patience that makes it difficult to foresee Boston eventually parting ways with the young pitcher -- and yet another reason why letting Clay go now may be a mistake. As mentioned earlier, it's of near-unanimous opinion that Buchholz has the potential to be a top-tier pitcher at the professional level, so it hardly makes sense to have displayed such a level of equanimity in relation to trading Buchholz to this point only to move him now.

On the other hand, when assessing the potential upside to the opposite end of the spectrum (that being trading Buchholz), finding positives is not a toilsome task by any means.

Using the same formula of potential plus appeal, Buchholz can assuredly create a very intriguing centerpiece to any package of players that could conceivably land the big-name addition that may be needed to transform the Red Sox from a contender to a favorite. In a similar sense that a young starting pitcher's value undoubtedly decreases the allure of being traded at the hands of his particular organization, the same fact subsequently increases the appeal for other teams who may be looking to complete a deal. While Jacoby Ellsbury was reportedly the one player demanded in any potential deal between the Detroit Tigers and the Red Sox regarding Curtis Granderson, Clay Buchholz remains the most highly sought-after name that has been dangled by the members Boston's front-office. It's no coincidence that he has been linked to discussions surrounding high-caliber stars such as Adrian Gonzalez, Hanley Ramirez, and Roy Halladay (to name a few). His value is undeniable -- however you choose to look at it.

When considering a trade this season, the current rotation featured by the Red Sox should afford them the luxury of moving a player like Buchholz to fill voids left in other areas -- this particular instance calling for an offensive upgrade according to popular opinion. With a surplus of viable options in the rotation entering 2010, Buchholz's departure could be perceived as a less-significant subtraction than it may have been in previous years. Josh Beckett, John Lackey, and Jon Lester combine to form one of the most imposing 1-2-3 punches in all of baseball. While a team can never have too much pitching depth, the stability of the Red Sox's rotation as it stands now does nothing but increase the likelihood that he be continue to be shopped; even moreso if Beckett is re-signed during the course of the regular season.

Boston failed to successfully consummate a deal to acquire Adrian Gonzalez from the Padres this off season, but with San Diego ostensibly in position to struggle yet again in 2010, it's more than probable that Gonzalez will again find himself amidst trade rumors surrounding next year's trade deadline. While David Ortiz was one of the best hitters statistically during the second half of last season, his positive production is hardly the certainty that it once was. Another slow start from Ortiz may force management to re-address the offensive issue mid-season. If someone like Adrian Gonzalez is again made available at the deadline, his consistent production and friendly contractual obligations may be too enticing to pass up for the Red Sox, even at the cost of Buchholz.

However, thanks in large part to the Red Sox's pitching staff, namely the starting rotation, it would require a truly dismal output from this offense to have a profound impact on Boston's considerations as a contender. That being said, there may be too much emphasis being placed on the subtraction of Jason Bay's production and not enough on the potential upside to the newly-formed lineup. Despite Bay's departure, the Red Sox may actually end up having a more successful offensive campaign in 2010 -- all things considered. New additions Victor Martinez, Marco Scutaro, and Adrian Beltre all represent offensive upgrades at their respective positions in relation to last year's club (Martinez based on his first full season with Boston). That fact, coupled with the improvements made to the pitching rotation and the defensive alignment, could make this year's Sox a vastly-improved team from an overall outlook.

With Buchholz staying put throughout this entire off season amidst much speculation that the Red Sox were in dire need of a power-hitter to compliment their lineup, it seems less-likely that Theo Epstein is willing to move his prized developmental product (at least this season).

So, while it appears that Buchholz is safely entrenched in Boston for the time being; just how long before his name again resurfaces in the rumors section? And whatever they decide to do -- will it end up being the right move?

Poll
Should the Boston Red Sox continue to shop Clay Buchholz (whether in regards to this season or in the future)?
Yes.
340 votes
No.
520 votes
Undecided.
99 votes

959 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 50 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Also worth mentioning...

…that aside from Casey, Boston doesn’t really boast any truly impactful starting pitching (near MLB-ready) in their system as the moment, not on the level that Buchholz was a few years ago anyway.

At least not in my opinion.

(suffice it to say I voted “No.”)

by Logan Lietz on Jan 7, 2010 6:08 AM EST reply actions  

Bowden?

I never hear Bowden’s name even mentioned as a good prospect anymore. Has he slipped that much? His Pawtucket numbers (SO/BB, ERA) were pretty good last season.

by Scoop1981 on Jan 7, 2010 8:02 AM EST up reply actions  

He's really young to just be given up on.

But he was never at Buchholz’ level to begin with, and now he has to prove himself.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Jan 7, 2010 8:43 AM EST up reply actions  

right

I’m in no way suggesting that Bowden should be given up on, I just don’t think he has the same caliber of upside that someone like Buchholz had (obviously), which was my point; the Red Sox don’t have the high level pitching prospects that project as front of the rotation guys in their system right now (aside from Kelly).

by Logan Lietz on Jan 7, 2010 9:18 AM EST up reply actions  

actually

When I posted that initial comment, his name was the reason I added the “not on the level that Buchholz was” part.

I just don’t know what to think about Bowden yet….still.

by Logan Lietz on Jan 7, 2010 8:42 AM EST reply actions  

They won't trade Buch before the season.

But come July, if we need an offense injection, and the rotation is otherwise doing well, I wouldn’t be shocked to see him go.

Though hopefully he’ll step up and pitch good enough that it’s be crazy to trade him.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Jan 7, 2010 8:58 AM EST reply actions  

agreed

The signing of Beltre essentially laid to rest any ideas of Buchholz starting 2010 anywhere but Boston, even prior to that the chances were slim.

Personally, I think Buchholz is going to have a really solid season (especially as a #5 starter).

I used to think trading him for a bat was a good idea, but I seem to be changing my mind more and more with each passing day. As of now I’m pretty much 100% against trading him, regardless of who it’s for.

by Logan Lietz on Jan 7, 2010 9:21 AM EST up reply actions  

Actually, I would be surprised to see him moved this year

With the Beltre signing, the Sox are now set at the corners. That means they’re unlikely to try to acquire a Gonzalez or Cabrera during the season (unless there’s an unforeseen injury to a key player).

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

by Drugs Delaney on Jan 7, 2010 10:08 AM EST up reply actions  

I agree.

I don’t think we’ll move him, unless we badly need offense, i.e, if Beltre, Cameron, or Papi scuffle, or if there’s an injury.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Jan 7, 2010 6:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I could Ellsbury being trade for a corner-outfield bat

"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 Jan 7, 2010 11:32 PM EST up reply actions  

though at this point, only if something terrible happens to Beltre/Youk

because we SHOULD have very solid corners. I wouldn’t be shocked to see someone traded after this year though.

by wolf9309 on Jan 13, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions  

You want Theo to trade a top pitching prospect?

Good luck with that. You might as well ask Bill Belichick to discuss injuries.

I don’t know what it would take to pry a Kelly or Buchholz loose from Epstein’s iron death grip. He’d probably demand AGon plus prospects before he’d greenlight a trade like that.

by lone1c on Jan 7, 2010 9:18 AM EST reply actions  

Don't want!

Yeah I would say Buchholz is becoming untouchable; Kelly already is.

by Logan Lietz on Jan 7, 2010 9:23 AM EST up reply actions  

If they sign Chapman

That would make Bucholz more avail. If not I think he stays unless our offense really sux and our pitching is keeping us in the running at the trade deadline

by Pl1166 on Jan 7, 2010 9:30 AM EST reply actions  

Not sure

I actually made that exact point in a previous article regarding Chapman’s signing making Buchholz more expendable, but I’m starting to have a change of heart.

For one, I don’t think the Red Sox end up signing Chapman the more I read about it. Also, I think that if Buchholz were going to be moved then they would have used him to make a more concerted effort to land Gonzalez prior to Beltre’s signing (especially when it seemed bleak that the deal would get done).

At this point, it just seems as though Buchholz is only going somewhere if he truly falls off this year or if Boston is “wowed” by an offer…niether of which seem likely to me. Idk…

by Logan Lietz on Jan 7, 2010 9:50 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't see a need to trade Clay now that we have Beltre

since we have the starting corner infielders set. Unless there’s an unfortunate season ending injury to one of the two, it’d be kind of a waste to get A-Gon/Miguel with somebody of that worth riding the pine.

Aside from injuries, Clay Buchholz will be pitching for the Red Sox in October.

Introducing the new 2008 Big 12 Football Champions: OU, UT*, TT*, and MU*!
Now Introducing the new 2009 Big 12 Baseball Tournament Champions: UT, KSU*, BU*, and MU*!

by mystman995 on Jan 7, 2010 10:08 AM EST reply actions  

Funny

I just posted the same thing. Great minds think alike :-)

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

by Drugs Delaney on Jan 7, 2010 10:10 AM EST up reply actions  

Touche!

Introducing the new 2008 Big 12 Football Champions: OU, UT*, TT*, and MU*!
Now Introducing the new 2009 Big 12 Baseball Tournament Champions: UT, KSU*, BU*, and MU*!

by mystman995 on Jan 7, 2010 10:22 AM EST up reply actions  

+1

You both saved me the trouble.

I might add that I believe that the marginal value of replacing Beltre or Youk with A-Gon (netting changes to both offense and defense) is probably significantly less than the marginal value of Buchholz over Wakefield in the starting rotation. So for this coming year the value proposition goes heavily in favor of not trading Buchholz.

Yes, we lose Beltre eventually so the longer term value calculation is different – but we’d be keeping Buchholz as a further hedge against the potential loss of Beckett in the rotation. So again, even beyond this year it makes more sense right now to NOT move Buchholz (at least for A-Gon).

by mmmmm on Jan 7, 2010 11:01 AM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

We have Lester through 2014. We have Lackey through 2014. Wake is done after 2011. We control Clay for a few more years. And we have Dice-K through 2012.

Let’s assume we re-sign Beckett. That gives us a rotation of Lester, Beckett, Lackey, Clay, and Dice-K through the 2012 season. I’m assuming we lose Dice-K at that point — Boras is going to demand he be paid like an elite pitcher and someone will be dumb enough to give it to him — but Casey Kelly should be ready by 2013, probably sooner. That means we’re set up to have a dominant rotation for several years.

Now, it’s possible we lose Beckett, but we’d still have an excellent rotation — Wake would be our fifth starter in 2011, then retire. And we could trade Kelly for someone like Gonzalez. But we’d still have a top three of Lester, Lackey, and Buchholz that ought to be the envy of most teams.

Ultimately, you have to conclude that Theo has done a masterful job setting up the Sox rotation for the next several years. And because he’s done such a great job of it, he can afford to trade Buchholz if the right offer comes along, especially if he re-signs Beckett — but it has to be a great deal.

by RSNexile on Jan 7, 2010 1:39 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree mostly

But I keep thinking hes our 4 or 5th starter for someone like Gonzalez.

by Pl1166 on Jan 7, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions  

He's our fourth starter THIS YEAR

On most teams, he’d be the second or third starter right now. And while he’d probably still be our third pitcher in a couple of years, at that point he’d be the ace on at least half the rotations in the majors. So you can’t think of him as merely a bottom-of-the-rotation starter — he’s a hell of a lot more than that.

by RSNexile on Jan 7, 2010 2:13 PM EST up reply actions  

I know that y I mostly agree

But I’d love to see Gonzalez on this team. If he can hit 40 in SD what would he do in Fenway

by Pl1166 on Jan 7, 2010 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Not worth trading the house for

San Diego will either accept less for him at the deadline next year, either before the season or at the deadline, or we can go after him in free agency and he’ll only cost us a draft pick.

by RSNexile on Jan 7, 2010 3:11 PM EST up reply actions  

I doubt we resign Beckett.

especially if Buch plays well this year.

"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 Jan 7, 2010 11:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed to some degree

Beltre’s signing certainly diminished any possibility that Buchholz be moved prior to the beginning of the season, but it’ll be interesting to see how the Red Sox approach the trade deadline if Ortiz fails to produce or someone like Youkilis/Martinez/Beltre gets seriously hurt.

But yes, I’ll say it again, after the way this off season played out (especially early on), I don’t see Buchholz being moved any time soon — if at all.

by Logan Lietz on Jan 7, 2010 10:13 AM EST up reply actions  

I agree

Theo should not be looking to trade Clay based on the “what if’s”

Introducing the new 2008 Big 12 Football Champions: OU, UT*, TT*, and MU*!
Now Introducing the new 2009 Big 12 Baseball Tournament Champions: UT, KSU*, BU*, and MU*!

by mystman995 on Jan 7, 2010 10:24 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't think Buchholz is going anywhere

At least not this year, something might always come up in the future. But what about Wake? Is he the long reliever now? Are he and Dice-K going to split games? (Joking on the last one… Sort of…)

by brogshan on Jan 7, 2010 10:35 AM EST reply actions  

long relief and spot starter - someone is bound to get injured at some point

And he should do very well in that role. Less wear and tear on his body. May be able to maximize quality innings out of him rather than quantity.

by mmmmm on Jan 7, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions  

Wake is bound to get injured at some point

By keeping him in the role Justin Masterson occupied at the start of last season, though, he may be able to last. It seems almost criminal, though, to have him go out like that.

Then again, unless Dice-K has changed his conditioning, Wake will still get 20 starts anyway.

by RSNexile on Jan 7, 2010 1:21 PM EST up reply actions  

All reports I have heard

indicate that Dice K has indeed ‘changed his conditioning’ , is working very hard and is very highly motivated to show that last year was the aberation.

Hopefully that isn’t just wishful buzz.

by mmmmm on Jan 7, 2010 2:12 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't believe it until I see the results

All the reports we heard when we first got him were that he was an ace. But even at his best, he’s been nothing more than a third starter — Beckett and Lester have both been far better throughout his tenure.

by RSNexile on Jan 7, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Yah - buzz is just buzz

Still, his 18 win season was pretty damn good. And he’s had some outings that show that he could live up to the buzz.

by mmmmm on Jan 7, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions  

There was A LOT of bullpen help in that 18 win season.

And a lot of PeptoBismol.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

by Bloggy on Jan 7, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

And a lot of luck, too

A .267 BABIP is the only reason he looked so impressive. He was significantly better in his first year, when his numbers looked mediocre — he walked batters less often, struck them out more, and averaged 6.4 innings per start (compared to 5.8 in the 18 win season).

by RSNexile on Jan 7, 2010 3:20 PM EST up reply actions  

not so simple

Yes, his walks went way up in 08 v 07 (from 3.5 per 9 innings to 5.0 per 9 innings).

But his hits per 9 dropped correspondingly down (8.4 to 6.9) so that his WHIP was identical.

A walk isn’t quite as good as a hit, so missing bats helped him more than missing the plate hurt him.

Maybe the low BABIP probably helped remove some potential hits?

His OBP against was virtually identical (due to the BBs), but the slugging numbers really, really dropped (.405 to .324). I would think a low BABIP would be removing more singles than extra base hits. And in fact he gave up a lot fewer doubles (42→29) and HRs (25→12) – that certainly helped.

So that suggests that the low BABIP was probably less a factor than just plain being harder to square up. He put people on base with walks, but left a lot on because he was hard to hit. Sort of a classic nibbler.

I.E. there’s two kinds of pitchers that walk a lot of batters: Wild Things (who can’t help it) and Nibblers (who refuse to give in to the hitter).

by mmmmm on Jan 7, 2010 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Do you suppose his lower BABIP had something to do with his lower H/9?

Look, BABIP is a function of luck. You should expect a BABIP of about .300. Dice-K’s was .306 in 2007 — about normal — and .267 in 2008, indicating he was very lucky. So it had everything to do with the change in H/9 — that alone explains the difference between 8.4 and 6.9 H/9.

As for the rest:

1) The 39 point difference in BABIP between 2007 and 2008 explains a hefty chunk of the slugging difference, including doubles — batters don’t have a whole lot of control over where they put the ball when they put it in play, so if they’re having worse luck in getting the ball to drop in for a hit, they’re almost certainly also having worse luck getting the ball to drop in the gap so they can take two.

2) Home runs aren’t dealt with in BABIP because they’re not in play, so they have nothing to do with the difference in BABIP. But all the statistics show that pitchers have very little control over how what proportion of fly balls they allow will turn into home runs. So if the proportion of flies is about the same, a change in the proportion of home runs per fly ball is, like BABIP, a function of luck. There was virtually no difference in how batters hit the ball (flies, grounders, liners, etc.) of Dice-K between the two years.

3) That’s why we use statistics like FIP to determine how effective a pitcher really is. But the problem with FIP is that it assumes pitchers do have substantial control over the percentage of fly balls they allow that become home runs; again, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that that is the case. A better measure is xFIP, which is a normalized measure of FIP. So what did Dice-K’s xFIP look like? In 2007, it was 4.31 — acceptable but not great, just like Dice-K’s outcomes. In 2008, it was 4.70 — barely passable, but far worse than his outcomes. And sure enough, with a nearly identical K/9 and better BB/9 the next year but far more normal HR/FB and a ridiculously high BABIP of .385, Dice-K’s outcomes were far worse even though he pitched only marginally worse overall when he wasn’t disabled by the side effects of a terrible case of sloth.

So no, it’s not “simple.” But anyone who tells you his going 18-3 with a 2.90 ERA in 2008 wasn’t hugely a function of luck is absolutely kidding themselves.

by RSNexile on Jan 7, 2010 6:07 PM EST up reply actions  

True

But I think it likely his BABIP ends up around .300 this year — certainly it will be closer to .300 than last year, merely from regression to the mean. And that combined with superior conditioning habits — assuming Dice-K has done his job this offseason — will get him back to performing like a league average pitcher.

If he’s ridiculously lucky like he was in 2008, he’ll appear to be a solid middle-of-the-rotation guy. But if he’s who he seems to be and merely isn’t horribly unlucky like he was last year, he’ll be about league average or maybe a little better, and that would make him the best fifth starter in the American League.

by RSNexile on Jan 7, 2010 8:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I didn't mean to suggest he wasn't hugely lucky in 2008

He clearly was, with a BABIP difference like that.

But I did note that was a pretty significant drop in extra base hits.

And as you said – and I said – the BABIP number doesn’t completely explain that.

A significant portion of doubles in Fenway are not balls in the gap, but rather wall balls. Thus doubles are reflective also of power and not just luck of finding the gaps.

BABIP can also drop if fewer ground balls are hit hard enough to get through the gaps.

Thus, aside from yes, beinging ‘luckier’, it seems to me that he was also legitimately harder to hit in 2008 than in 2007.

Overall, I agree with your assessment of what we should probably expect from him this year. But I do think that there have been signs here and there of him having potential to be much better.

by mmmmm on Jan 8, 2010 11:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Never say never

If there was some sort of fantastic package that would bring us Pujols, Hanley, Adrian Gonzalez, and the cash to cover all their salaries and all Theo would have to give up would be Buchholz, you pull the trigger on that deal without even thinking about it.

But the kind of proposed deals we’ve been hearing, where we give up a potential ace (Buchholz) plus two or three top prospects (e.g., Kelly, Westmoreland) for someone like Roy Halladay? Sure, we’d be a little better this year, but not much. And we would be a lot worse off down the road. To make a trade like that, I have to be absolutely convinced it’s the one move that guarantees we win the World Series this year, and none of the proposed trades we’ve heard about are anything close to that.

by RSNexile on Jan 7, 2010 1:19 PM EST reply actions  

Exactly why I voted "Undecided"

Of course, those deals never happen

DFA Beckett

by South Coast Ghost on Jan 7, 2010 1:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Buchholz

We can’t trade him – I just figured out how to spell his name correctly —

I used to be on the trade Buchholz bandwagon, but I’m off it for a few reasons

- Its harder to find, keep and pay for top notch pitching than it is to find a positional player…just ask about 20+ ML teams who have a hard time trotting out a decent rotation year in and year out.

- Buchholz showed me something last year – Heart and Ability….

- Beckett. I’d keep Buchholz around until I really know what was going to happen to Josh.

I’d trade Casey Kelly before trading Clay

by BobZupcic on Jan 7, 2010 3:56 PM EST reply actions  

almost in complete agreement

Agreed with everything you said……….EXCEPT the Kelly before Clay part.

by Logan Lietz on Jan 7, 2010 4:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I'll agree with you there when he turns in a solid season at AA.

Right now his success if confined to High A with an older age class…..impressive, but not to the caliber Buchholz has been….

"Hating the New York Yankees is as American as apple pie, unwed mothers and cheating on your income tax." -- Mike Royko

by sox-inda-south on Jan 7, 2010 4:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Well yeah...

Obviously it’s hard to argue against the fact that Clay has a more impressive resume to this point, but with Kelly being so young and talented – I don’t think it’s a stretch to consider that his ceiling is relatively similar to that of Buchholz’s.

I think Kelly is the first prospect since Buchholz that I am truly excited about in terms of his potential; that kid is special.

by Logan Lietz on Jan 7, 2010 11:26 PM EST up reply actions  

I'd trade Kelly before Clay.

Clay probably has the higher cieling.

But Clay will bring a much more significant return.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Jan 7, 2010 8:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Assuming equal leverage, I'd go Kelly before Buchholz too

I like Clay’s new groundball tendency’s along with some K’s. Kelly has a nice chance of making his ceiling, but I don’t yet quite see him as an ace yet, mostly velocity based.

DFA Beckett

by South Coast Ghost on Jan 8, 2010 12:05 AM EST up reply actions  

true

…but at the same time, he is doing a lot of work to incorporate some off-speed stuff into his list of go-to (strikeout) pitches from what I’ve read.

I guess it will be interesting to see how Buchholz does in 2010, I’m really hoping he starts to truly cement himself as a consistently-reliable starter this year.

by Logan Lietz on Jan 8, 2010 5:57 AM EST up reply actions  

I also like the fact

that he’s in the majors NOW, and still under control for a long time to come. Kelly’s only pitched in A ball, and I don’t see how he can be rated above someone with as impressive a resume as Buchholz.

by wolf9309 on Jan 13, 2010 11:48 AM 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.
Start posting about the Red Sox »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
What we lost... what we "gained"
Tardy_001_small
The negativity
Small
OTM Fantasy Football?
Tatersox_small
I Demand Blood

Recent FanPosts

Small
Fantasy league looking for managers
Hpim0626_small
Facts Of the Season
Tatersox_small
PLAYOFFS?? We talkin' 'bout playoffs? (Yahoo Fantasy)
Small
Killing Paps value
Small
Trade With Dodgers
Spokedb_onblack_1600x1200_small
Minor League Rankings
Spokedb_onblack_1600x1200_small
It's Not Over Yet,  But....

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

SEATTLE - JULY 10:  Starting pitcher Felix Hernandez #34 of the Seattle Mariners celebrates after defeating the New York Yankees 4-1 at Safeco Field on July 10 2010 in Seattle Washington. (Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images)

MLB Power Rankings: On The Challenge Of Identifying A League's Best Pitcher

ANAHEIM CA - SEPTEMBER 08:  Jeff Mathis #5 of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is mobbed by teammates after hitting a  walk off sacrifice fly to score Torri Hunter form third base against the Cleveland Indians in the 16th inning on September 8 2010 at Angel Stadium in Anaheim California.   The Angels won 4-3 in 16 innings.  (Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

Mathis' 16th-Inning Sac Fly Lifts Angels Over Indians 4-3

Philadelphia Phillies' Jimmy Rollins, left, slides into home to score past the tag of Florida Marlins catcher Brad Davis on a single by Carlos Ruiz in the third inning of a baseball game, Wednesday, Sept. 8, 2010, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum) +2 updates

Phils Top Marlins 10-6, Jimmy Rollins Leaves Game With 'Hamstring Tightness'

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

20136_562469370037_32603605_33253497_5601129_n_small Randy Booth

Editors

Master_shake_small Allen Chace

Rorscach_small 0157H7

Red_seat_small Ben Buchanan

Authors

Zissou551_small SoxDevil

Red_sox_logo_small Logan Lietz

Red-sox-yankees_small BerkshireFan

Photo_small wolf9309