Bucholz and Ellsbury for Santana: revisited

[Triboy16]

It would have took both of these players to get santana and man i kind of feel we should have done it.

bucholz main reason he has suked and even tonight proving this theory is that the guy throws many too many balls and doesn't seem like he has the composure to throw his stuff through the middle of the plate. Also a huge problem with bucholz is that he is so fraile and its really disappointing how did he didn't strengthen up further during the off season(look exactly the same as last years physical stature)

ellsbury can run and field with the best in the league but the guy doesn't know how to be patient when hitting. No ball is too bad for him to hit and its causing him issues. He needs to stop trying to adjust his hitting to where the ball is pitched and concentrate more on a constant swing. (more clearly stop changing his body to the pitch )

they are both still young but i don't know its still disappointing to watch them struggle like this. Ellsbury was great in last years world series and he should be dominating right now. Bucholz came off a no hitter last year and should be dominating. I'm really glad we didn't give up on lester because he is going to be a seriously good pitcher for us for years to come

[TradeProposalDude]

I was just telling this to a friend as we were watching the Red Sox give the game away to the lowly Orioles. People are now beginning to see that Jacoby is an overrated version of Kenny Lofton, and not some all-star. The only reason he "sells" is because girlies find him cute. And sadly enough a large percentage of guys think he's adorable too.

In my mind, you always pull the trigger for an ace-quality pitcher who is still fairly young. One could make the argument that Hanley Ramirez could project to be one of the best ever infielders to play the game when his career is up, but look who we got in the deal, and frankly would we have won the whole thing last year had it not been for Beckett's terrific pitching in the playoffs?

Buccholz is an intriguing prospect who's got a long career ahead of him, but I just don't think the two together were valuable enough for the long term to keep around when the prospect of acquiring another top of the line pitcher was on the table.

I'll be certain to give credit in places where they are just, in regards to front office decisions. Theo Epstein has done a sound job overall, but please let's not discount the blunders. Every GM is guilty of a few, but this was a big one in my opinion.

[ReadyFor17]

For one, we don't know what the Sox were offering. All indications were that Buchholz was off the table the whole time. We also don't know if the Twins were willing to deal Santana to an AL team. Considering they took what appeared to be a lesser deal from the Mets compared to what the Sox were rumored to be offering, this may very well be the case.

It's misleading to say it was as simple as trading just two players. The rumors were of two possible deals centered around either Lester or Ellsbury, with both deals rounded out by Jed Lowrie and Justin Masterson, maybe more.  Then you look at the $20 million/yr it would have taken to sign him long-term, and you're paying an extremely hefty price for a guy that would have been a luxury. The Sox rotation has proven to be very strong and ridiculously deep at great value, and figures to continue that way for years. I'd rather save the money and prospects and still have a sick rotation (which they do and will for a long time).

Ellsbury has struggled recently for sure, but is his beginning of the season so easily forgotten? Young players slump - pitchers adjusted to him and it's only a matter of time before he makes adjustments of his own. I for one would be thrilled if he becomes any kind of version of Kenny Lofton. He became overrated because of last season but he's not nearly as bad as he was in June.

I'm not worried at all about Clay; he's still got great stuff and has recently been working on his mechanics, he's got all the talent he had when he threw a no-hitter last year and he will be a major part of the Sox future making a tiny fraction of Santana's salary as he enters his prime while Santana leaves his.

It's really short-sighted to call this a big blunder by the FO. Theo saved the money to spend elsewhere and held on to Lester who has pitched near ace-level this season; Ellsbury who will be a great defensive CFer and solid leadoff man/basepath menace for years; Lowrie who could be the starting SS in the near future and Masterson who has filled in admirably this year and will play a huge role in this team's short and long term future. If anyone made the blunder it was the Yankees, the team that actually needed a starter.

[slamdunk]

I agree that Ellsbury was overrated by some. Part of why he was so successful last year was because he didn't play enough for the opposing pitchers to get a read on him. You could say the same about his minor league success; he hasn't played in a full season above A ball. This year they have seen him and been able to adapt.

From what I remember, Buchholz was never involved in the deal. It was Lester or Ellsbury at the top with others thrown in.

[Roy Hobbs]

Ellsbury and Buchholz are both young, talented, and cost-controlled.  Buchholz is having a rough season, but he has a track record of being a tremendous young prospect.  Ellsbury is having a good year (I'm not sure what the expectations were) and is definitely the type of run-creator our offense can use.

It's the "cost-controlled" part that's most important.  With the Sox having a top-heavy payroll, they need to have some contributors that don't make an insane salary.  Between the two of them, Ellsbury and Buchholz are making around $800,000 this season.  That's a bargain.  Santana, on the other hand, is making $17 million.  The Mets had to pay him $137.5 million over six years, for a guy who is already 29 years old.  A contract like that for a pitcher is a huge, huge risk; if his arm blows out, your payroll is wrecked for half a decade.

I'm quite happy that the Sox didn't make the trade.  The most reported deal was Lester + Ellsbury + another prospect (either Bowden or Masterson, usually) for Santana.  I'd gladly bank on their future, plus have an additional $20 million per season to spend, than I would add Santana.

[Big_Matt34]

First off Buchholz gained about 15 pounds and it is pretty obvious, all offseason he worked at API and you dont go there and not bulk up.

Another factor is Johan, while having looked good in the NL is a lefty with diminishing stuff who is a fly ball pitcher and homer prone. You take that and put him in Fenway and his ERA is in the mid to high 3's or so while costing 20+ million dollars.

Onto Buchholz, even though he has struggled in the majors this year he is striking out more than a person and inning and im not sure if you noticed but he had very good command of his fastball tonight, it was 94-97 with great movement. His numbers didnt look good but if he can command his fastball like that because of this new arm angle he will be very good in the 2nd half. He also has one of the highest babip (batting average for balls in play) of .365, that means he is having extremely bad luck and the law of averages says that goes way down as the league average is around .280 or so IIRC. If that goes down to even .300 his ERA in probably in the 3's which obviously is good. Him only giving up 3 homeruns in 47 innings is also a good sign for the rest of the year. Theres no reason for him not to be an above average pitcher for the rest of the season.

You say Ellsbury and Buchholz should be dominating but that really doesnt make any sense why should they be dominating. Throwing a no hitter is alot of luck, Pedro/Clemens/Schilling haven ever thrown one but Chris Bosio and Bud Smith have, that says it all. They are young players and are going to have ups and downs.

Lastly and most important, Buchholz and Ellsbury never was the deal, the Twins wanted one of them packaged with other players. The Red Sox said Buchholz was off the table and it was either a package built around Lester/Masterson or Ellsbury/Masterson. Theres is nothing wrong with holding onto 2 cost controlled young starters instead of giving 20+ million to a pitcher who wouldnt be that great of a fit here, im quite pleased we didnt deal for him and think its pretty clear it was the right move . The 2 deals the Red Sox supposedly offered were better than the one the Twins accepted from the Mets which means the Twins really werent interated in trading Johan to us or the Yankees. So unless the Sox were willing to overpay bigtime, they were never going to get Johan so its crying over nothing really. Ill take Lester/Masterson/Lowrie/Kalish or Ellsbury/Kalish/Masterson/Lowrie on the cheap for a long time over 20 million for Johan.

[BrickJames]

It's the "cost-controlled" part that's most important.  With the Sox having a top-heavy payroll, they need to have some contributors that don't make an insane salary.

Hmm, do I sense an unintentional (or perhaps, intentional) parallel being drawn to this Celtics organization?

[Roy Hobbs]

It's the "cost-controlled" part that's most important.  With the Sox having a top-heavy payroll, they need to have some contributors that don't make an insane salary.

Hmm, do I sense an unintentional (or perhaps, intentional) parallel being drawn to this Celtics organization?

Well really, it's just good business.  The only  franchises, in theory, that could win without having a certain percentage of their roster made up of cheap players are 1) the Yankees and 2) the Knicks.  Those are really the only two franchises that seem to have unlimited resources.  Every other team has to operate within a budget, although of course the Red Sox one is significantly higher than most other franchises.

[ReadyFor17]

It's the "cost-controlled" part that's most important.  With the Sox having a top-heavy payroll, they need to have some contributors that don't make an insane salary.

Hmm, do I sense an unintentional (or perhaps, intentional) parallel being drawn to this Celtics organization?

The NBA salary cap and small roster make it necessary to have cheap role players that contribute.

It's not necessary for MLB teams to have cost-controlled talent since there is no cap - it's just smart business to have players making less than half a million dollars that can perform at a similar to higher level than players making at least ten times as much and usually more.

Teams across MLB are starting to get the picture and the Sox under Epstein have been in the forefront of this philosophy, which makes the team so dangerous because of this business savvy combined with unlimited monetary resources to go out and get any veteran but the ability to fill the spot with a cheap, young player if they so choose.

It's gotten to the point now that teams covet their prospects to a fault at times. The two LA teams have sat on a bunch of good prospects over the past few years when either team could have made a big splash (with Santana or otherwise); the Yankees highly overrated Melky Cabrera and Ian Kennedy and failed to trade them at what is likely to be their peak value - cost-controlled players are all well and good but the important thing is that they actually have to make a positive contribution to the roster. The Sox have done an excellent job developing these kinds of players.

[Steve Weinman]

It's the "cost-controlled" part that's most important.  With the Sox having a top-heavy payroll, they need to have some contributors that don't make an insane salary.

Hmm, do I sense an unintentional (or perhaps, intentional) parallel being drawn to this Celtics organization?

Well really, it's just good business.  The only  franchises, in theory, that could win without having a certain percentage of their roster made up of cheap players are 1) the Yankees and 2) the Knicks.  Those are really the only two franchises that seem to have unlimited resources.  Every other team has to operate within a budget, although of course the Red Sox one is significantly higher than most other franchises.

Truth be told, in fairness to the hated Yanks, I think that baseball is a different animal from basketball here.  I agree about the Knicks in the NBA, but in baseball, the Yanks don't necessarily have more money than other teams -- just more willingness to use that money and to use it wisely over the years.  If I'm going to take my above shot at the Mets, I shouldn't omit the point that there are plenty of teams in the league that have tried throwing the dough around over the last few years (Peter Angelos in Baltimore comes to mind in particular) and have simply done a very poor job of it.  My beloved Dodgers tried for a few years while Rupert Murdoch and FOX ran the show in the late '90s, and let me tell you, it failed miserably.

I hate to be the defender of the pinstripes, and I acknowledge that the Yanks have done their fair share of 'buying talent' over the years, but if we're going to charge them with that, we should also credit with having a greater commitment to winning than most if not all other organizations over the course of the Steinbrenner Era (rather than having simply deeper pockets, as there is an important distinction).

My apologies for the slightly off-topic nature here, and I certainly hate to nitpick at the incomparable RH.  It's just a part of the discussion on the Yanks that I always find interesting and thought worth a mention in this particular conversation...

-sw

[celticswillwin43]

I may be the only person in New England who despises Ellsbury because of the fact we could of had Santana instead of him. Ellsbury is a decent player but hes no special talent, hes a 270 hitter with 40 SB's, theres plenty of guys like that. However there aren't many Johan Santanas , Bucholz i was high on and still am high on, but i would of sent him and ellsbury along for santana in a heart beat,

[Triboy16]

most of you guys are pointing out ellsbury and bucholz weren't offered as a package , WELL if they were both in the package twins would have said hell yeah we will give you johan.

Cost control seems like the best reason right now we are keeping these two guys.

I know when i see potential and these two are lacking important fundementals to be good thus far. Bucholz is all over the plate trying to make perfect pitches, walks alot of batters, and gives up hits eventually when he tires out. He has the tools to be good , he just can't pitch a proper game it seems. (jamie moyer for example not the best stuff but just pitches his heart out)

Ellsbury needs to calm down and stop trying to hit the first pitch he sses all the time. Take a pitch or two and study the pitchers pattern instead of the other way around. I don't remember the last game he walked twice. Good lead off hitters will walk. Anyhow if he isn't really a leadoff type of guy, better to put him down in the order and have a guy like youkilis lead off imo

[Roy Hobbs]

It's the "cost-controlled" part that's most important.  With the Sox having a top-heavy payroll, they need to have some contributors that don't make an insane salary.

Hmm, do I sense an unintentional (or perhaps, intentional) parallel being drawn to this Celtics organization?

Well really, it's just good business.  The only  franchises, in theory, that could win without having a certain percentage of their roster made up of cheap players are 1) the Yankees and 2) the Knicks.  Those are really the only two franchises that seem to have unlimited resources.  Every other team has to operate within a budget, although of course the Red Sox one is significantly higher than most other franchises.

Truth be told, in fairness to the hated Yanks, I think that baseball is a different animal from basketball here.  I agree about the Knicks in the NBA, but in baseball, the Yanks don't necessarily have more money than other teams -- just more willingness to use that money and to use it wisely over the years.  If I'm going to take my above shot at the Mets, I shouldn't omit the point that there are plenty of teams in the league that have tried throwing the dough around over the last few years (Peter Angelos in Baltimore comes to mind in particular) and have simply done a very poor job of it.  My beloved Dodgers tried for a few years while Rupert Murdoch and FOX ran the show in the late '90s, and let me tell you, it failed miserably.

I hate to be the defender of the pinstripes, and I acknowledge that the Yanks have done their fair share of 'buying talent' over the years, but if we're going to charge them with that, we should also credit with having a greater commitment to winning than most if not all other organizations over the course of the Steinbrenner Era (rather than having simply deeper pockets, as there is an important distinction).

My apologies for the slightly off-topic nature here, and I certainly hate to nitpick at the incomparable RH.  It's just a part of the discussion on the Yanks that I always find interesting and thought worth a mention in this particular conversation...

-sw

Well, Steve, I agree that the Yankees have certainly reinvested their money into their product.  However, they also are in another income bracket, I think.

Looking at the most recent Forbes numbers, the Yankees made $327 million in revenue last year, as compared to $263 million for the Red Sox, the second place team.  This $64 million gap, plus the nearly $500 million gap between the value of the two franchises, does put the Yankees in their own unique tier.  Also, I don't believe the numbers above take into account the valuation or revenue of the YES network vs. NESN, either, which further widens the revenue gap.

Again, the Yankees get credit for what they do with their money, but the idea that they don't have any more of it than any other team is inaccurate.  They have a huge financial advantage, partly due to their market and partly due to their prestige and success over time.

[ReadyFor17]

most of you guys are pointing out ellsbury and bucholz weren't offered as a package , WELL if they were both in the package twins would have said hell yeah we will give you johan.

Cost control seems like the best reason right now we are keeping these two guys.

I know when i see potential and these two are lacking important fundementals to be good thus far. Bucholz is all over the plate trying to make perfect pitches, walks alot of batters, and gives up hits eventually when he tires out. He has the tools to be good , he just can't pitch a proper game it seems. (jamie moyer for example not the best stuff but just pitches his heart out)

Ellsbury needs to calm down and stop trying to hit the first pitch he sses all the time. Take a pitch or two and study the pitchers pattern instead of the other way around. I don't remember the last game he walked twice. Good lead off hitters will walk. Anyhow if he isn't really a leadoff type of guy, better to put him down in the order and have a guy like youkilis lead off imo

Do you remember pre-2008 Jon Lester? What you said about Buchholz is exactly the pitcher that Lester was, making people prematurely think he could never be more than a 4-5 starter. Then he realized his stuff is good enough to throw strikes and not worry about getting hit hard, and now he's become a very good pitcher with top of the rotation potential.

Clay has had better k/bb rates than Lester his entire career and his stuff is at least as good as Lester's. If you're as happy as you say you are about not letting Lester go in a Santana deal, you should be happy they didn't let Buchholz go either, because he's a better bet than Lester was to improve his control. Young pitchers have these problems - almost every pitcher struggles at first, no matter how good they eventually become. Pitching in the majors is a huge adjustment and it often takes time, but Clay's got the talent to pull it together fairly soon.

They don't lack fundamentals; Julio Lugo lacks fundamentals - these two are just young and I think you're making a knee-jerk reaction based on half a season.

[gpap]

It's the "cost-controlled" part that's most important.  With the Sox having a top-heavy payroll, they need to have some contributors that don't make an insane salary.

Hmm, do I sense an unintentional (or perhaps, intentional) parallel being drawn to this Celtics organization?

Well really, it's just good business.  The only  franchises, in theory, that could win without having a certain percentage of their roster made up of cheap players are 1) the Yankees and 2) the Knicks.  Those are really the only two franchises that seem to have unlimited resources.  Every other team has to operate within a budget, although of course the Red Sox one is significantly higher than most other franchises.

Hmmm...I am pretty sure that the Red Sox are richer than the Yankees.