Clay Buchholz

[Wise Master Buehrle]

You have a very different definition of the word "successful" than I do. Yeah, he showed some flashes in 2007. But sorry, a line of .244/.308/.480/.788 doesn't qualify as "successful" to me. That's not getting into the fact that he's a K machine and plays a horrible 3B. Josh has been arguably the worst 3B in baseball this year. That's no exaggeration. Out of all qualifed 3rd baseman, Josh is second to last in average, third to last in HR's, second to last in RBI, and third to last in OPS. His K% is 32.5% (second highest behind Mark Reynolds). His defense has been pitiful. He fails the eye test and is near or at the bottom of every defensive metric that's out there. That's not just a slow start. Josh is bad at baseball. End of story.

 

 

 

Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, Tim Wakefield, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Brad Penny and soon to be John Smoltz. A lot of guys would struggle to break that rotation. Because of their unequaled pitching depth, combined with the fact CB obviously had command/control issues, they had the luxury of sending him back to AAA to work his problems out. It had nothing to do with him not being good enough, or a lack of stuff or injury. And now that he's obviously conquered AAA hitters, they're still struggling to find a spot for him because they're so deep pitching wise. And like Zoom said, your Matt Thornton comparison is WAYYYY off and in no ways comparable to the current discussion.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to convince you that Josh has no value. I know he has no value. And when the trade deadline comes and goes and he's either still here or we've sent him off for a B or C prospect, you'll see this as well.

 

 

Thanks but no thanks for not actually reading my post. Did I compare Buchholz to Thornton? No, I recall comparing Fields to Borchard and questioning your idea that he has zero value whatsoever despite hitting more HRs in the bigs then Joe Borchard. Yet you think he wouldn't net us a Matt Thornton-type of prospect, at best. Whatever, I won't ever understand why us fans underrate our prospects so much. If JOe Borchard can get us Matt Thornton with no ML success whatsoever, then Fields with his 20+ career home runs will be able to get us something of value.

 

Please, learn to read before ripping me for something I didn't even say. And that goes for ZoomSlowik too. I compare Borchards trade value to Fields and you try to say I'm comparing Thornton to Buchholz... gimme a f***ing break. You call it MY Matt Thornton comparison??? You guys put those words in my mouth, sorry, I call it my Fields trade value vs Borchard trade value comparison, and yes, it is relevant to the discussion because you're endlessly insisting that Fields has no trade value yet Borchard was able to get us a Matt Thornton type of player... it makes no sense to label Fields like that when he's had more success then Borchard ever had already. I already admitted it wouldn't be Buchholz, but if you're thinking Fields wouldn't net us a player of similar value in return, you're f***ing crazy and caught up in yourself. It's one thing to defend your opinion, but defending a ridiculous claim like "Fields has no trade value whatsoever" is just plain asinine.

Edited June 27, 2009 by DanksFan

[ZoomSlowik]

Thanks but no thanks for not actually reading my post. Did I compare Buchholz to Thornton? No, I recall comparing Fields to Borchard and questioning your idea that he has zero value whatsoever despite hitting more HRs in the bigs then Joe Borchard. Yet you think he wouldn't net us a Matt Thornton-type of prospect, at best. Whatever, I won't ever understand why us fans underrate our prospects so much. If JOe Borchard can get us Matt Thornton with no ML success whatsoever, then Fields with his 20+ career home runs will be able to get us something of value.

 

Please, learn to read before ripping me for something I didn't even say. And that goes for ZoomSlowik too. I compare Borchards trade value to Fields and you try to say I'm comparing Thornton to Buchholz... gimme a f***ing break. You call it MY Matt Thornton comparison??? You guys put those words in my mouth, sorry, I call it my Fields trade value vs Borchard trade value comparison, and yes, it is relevant to the discussion because you're endlessly insisting that Fields has no trade value yet Borchard was able to get us a Matt Thornton type of player... it makes no sense to label Fields like that when he's had more success then Borchard ever had already. I already admitted it wouldn't be Buchholz, but if you're thinking Fields wouldn't net us a player of similar value in return, you're f***ing crazy and caught up in yourself. It's one thing to defend your opinion, but defending a ridiculous claim like "Fields has no trade value whatsoever" is just plain asinine.

 

You grouped that paragraph very poorly if that was the point you were trying to get across, you went on a two sentence rant down-playing Buchholz's value and then immediately went into your Fields/Borchard rant. That implies a direct relation to that point, not a seperate thought. Starting a new paragraph or moving that to the first part of the post would have gotten that across far more clearly. You also spent the previous post and part of that one trying to defend a deal centered around Fields for Buchholz, so it looks like an attempt at a direct comparison.

 

It's still a poor point anyways because Thornton himself had virtually no value when we got him. He was struggling mightily in relief and the lightbulb didn't go on until we acquired him and he was 29 when we got him. He wasn't really a prospect, he was a journeyman that could throw hard but not do anything with his arm. Had he pitched like that before the trade, it would have cost a lot more than Borchard, we just had great timing and some help from Don Cooper. That's the entire problem with your point, "a player of similar value" at this point is an unproductive player in his mid-20's with a serious flaw or two.

Edited June 28, 2009 by ZoomSlowik

[chisoxfan09]

You grouped that paragraph very poorly if that was the point you were trying to get across, you went on a two sentence rant down-playing Buchholz's value and then immediately went into your Fields/Borchard rant. That implies a direct relation to that point, not a seperate thought. Starting a new paragraph or moving that to the first part of the post would have gotten that across far more clearly. You also spent the previous post and part of that one trying to defend a deal centered around Fields for Buchholz, so it looks like an attempt at a direct comparison.

 

It's still a poor point anyways because Thornton himself had virtually no value when we got him. He was struggling mightily in relief and the lightbulb didn't go on until we acquired him and he was 29 when we got him. He wasn't really a prospect, he was a journeyman that could throw hard but not do anything with his arm. Had he pitched like that before the trade, it would have cost a lot more than Borchard, we just had great timing and some help from Don Cooper. That's the entire problem with your point, "a player of similar value" at this point is an unproductive player in his mid-20's with a serious flaw or two.

 

Zoom, an interesting part of your quote centers on the fact (I am guilty as the next fan of this thinking) that we all believe Coop with his magic touch is going to tweak or fix every pitching defect these players come with. Just not realistic.