Clay's option

[Cuzittt]

It's about the time for the front office to weigh in on the should we or shouldn't we. The decision? Clay Buchholz's $13 million option for next year.

Up on the com, Lisa Carney takes a look at the decision making process
 

To the average Joe, thirteen million dollars is quite the yearly salary. Its difficult to wrap your head around paying a guy that much when he just barely squeaked out half a season of work. But it also shouldnt be difficult for the average Joe to see that when healthy, Clay is one of the most dynamic pitchers in the game. So how does that dichotomy translate to Clays role in 2016?

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

A month ago I thought this was a no-brainer to pick it up.  Now, with Ed Rod showing consistency and a very possible "no. 2" quality, along with Owens also showing some real talent..., hell... even Rich Hill looking like he can put a long string of quality starts together,  I'm suddenly not so sure anymore.
That $13 million for half a season of Clay could be looked at as $26 million for a full season of someone else.  I know that's not how it all works, but that money could still be applied to add David Price to this rotation instead.
 
Price
Eddie
Porcello
Kelly
Miley
Owens
Wright
Hill
 
Obviously a healthy Buchholz in front of Eddie makes the rotation dominant as opposed to very good.  But if Clay's $13 million would be the difference between say, adding Shark instead of Price, then I think having a Clay-less rotation makes sense.  It all depends on how much the Sox FO is willing to spend this offseason.

 

[moondog80]

If nothing else, Buchholz on a one year deal for 13.5 mil, with a team option to repeat in 2017, would have some trade value.  Right?  So it's a no-brainer.  

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

A month ago I thought this was a no-brainer to pick it up.  Now, with Ed Rod showing consistency and a very possible "no. 2" quality, along with Owens also showing some real talent..., hell... even Rich Hill looking like he can put a long string of quality starts together,  I'm suddenly not so sure anymore.
That $13 million for half a season of Clay could be looked at as $26 million for a full season of someone else.  I know that's not how it all works, but that money could still be applied to add David Price to this rotation instead.
 
Price
Eddie
Porcello
Kelly
Miley
Owens
Wright
Hill
 
Obviously a healthy Buchholz in front of Eddie makes the rotation dominant as opposed to very good.  But if Clay's $13 million would be the difference between say, adding Shark instead of Price, then I think having a Clay-less rotation makes sense.  It all depends on how much the Sox FO is willing to spend this offseason.

 
I'm not sure Hill could put together "a long string of quality starts" but he certainly has put together a short string of gems.  OTOH, I'm not sure how long a string Clay is good for, either.  But it's a no-brainer to pick up Clay's option.
 
What I'd like most to happen, though, is for the Sox to pick up Clay's option and then package him up with a couple prospects. 
 
In my own personal fantasy world where magic rainbow unicorns make these things work out nicely, DDski takes on the full salary for both Homer Bailey and Aroldis Chapman in order to fill the Sox two biggest holes, while giving up only Buchholz, Margot, and Ball.
 
If the unicorn could swing it, then maybe Joey Votto, Hanley Ramirez, and some prospects who I wouldn't otherwise want to give up also get involved.

 

[shaggydog2000]

If nothing else, Buchholz on a one year deal for 13.5 mil, with a team option to repeat in 2017, would have some trade value.  Right?  So it's a no-brainer.  

 
Yeah, you can't find a pitcher with that upside with a contract like that on the open market.  Even if you don't want him in the rotation next year it's a no brainer to resign him and trade him if you need to make room.  The value is there.  

 

[mt8thsw9th]

In my own personal fantasy world where magic rainbow unicorns make these things work out nicely, DDski takes on the full salary for both Homer Bailey and Aroldis Chapman in order to fill the Sox two biggest holes, while giving up only Buchholz, Margot, and Ball.
 

 
I'm by no means a Buchholz fan, but how is this "only giving up" those players when you're taking on $81 million for an injured starter with a career ERA+ of 95? One year of an ace reliever, and maybe 65 innings of pitching, is worth a top prospect and $81 million? Bailey only fills a hole if that hole is the DL spot Buchholz may be in, or "bad Buchholz" if he's actually on the mound.
 
I'm not sure who you'd sell on Buchholz giving them more than a half season worth of starts, but I would hope he has more value than that dumpster fire of a trade.

 

[Apisith]

A half a season of Buchholz this year was worth 2.7 bWAR, which is almost $18m by today's standards.
 
Fangraphs has him worth 3.2 fWAR, valued at a cool $25m.
 
$13m for half a season of Clay is a pretty good deal because a full season of healthy Clay is a Cy Young contender.
 
I know health is always a concern and it'd suck if he got injured and missed next year's playoff run, but I'm more concerned about getting into the playoffs first at this point.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I think they'll exercise the option for the already stated reason: you can't find many/any FAs with Clay's upside for that price.  It's a value buy. 
 
However, I don't think they can again go into the season with the idea that Clay can front the rotation.  He's too unreliable.  A $180M team ought to have someone who can reasonably be counted on to throw 200+ quality innings at the top of its rotation.  Someone who's done it before, repeatedly and recently.  We don't have that guy (yet). 
 
So I think it's most likely that they re-up with Clay  in order to deal him for something else - a good bullpen arm, or in a package deal for a more reliable starter.  My wishcasting would be to send him (and maybe some cash?) plus Margot and Johnson (and a lotto ticket?) to Oakland for Gray.

 

[smastroyin]

I would take the option without even a second thought.  We've all said it enough times, you can never have too many starters, even ones that you can only count on for 15-20 starts.  
 
The Red Sox will have at least two guys with options to spare (Owens and EdRod) so it's not like they have to cut people to make room for Buchholz.
 
ETA:  To me the only reason not to pick up Buchholz is if you are going for a true lowest cost possible "rebuild" year to maximize opportunities for the under 27 crowd and build around the ones that show something in  2017.  I just don't think that is the Sox plan at all.

 

[Toe Nash]

A no-brainer to pick up his option presuming the most recent medicals are OK. I don't see a cheaper way to get such upside. Some reasoning:
 
-Over the last 6 years, he has averaged 140 IP and 2.3 bWAR per year. He has topped 1.5 fWAR in 4 of the 6 seasons, if you prefer that (I don't).
-In 2 of the last 3 years, he has a FIP below 2.80. He has thrown over 100 IP in 2013 and 2015 and been so good during those innings that he put up 2.8 and 3.1 fWAR -- more than earning his contract. (And if you use bWAR, his case is even better). If those weren't his three most recent years I would feel differently, but recent history is good and when healthy he has been better than ever.
-If you expect him to miss some time, the Sox have plenty of guys with options who could step in and provide above-replacement level performance. Sucks for Owens potentially, but them's the breaks.
-If you're worried about having enough cash to sign Price, I think they would be willing to go over the luxury tax for one year and let Clay go after the season. Or they're likely clearing salary another way by trading Hanley anyyay.
 
I mean, $10m / 1 yr got us Justin Masterson. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I would take the option without even a second thought.  We've all said it enough times, you can never have too many starters, even ones that you can only count on for 15-20 starts.  
 
The Red Sox will have at least two guys with options to spare (Owens and EdRod) so it's not like they have to cut people to make room for Buchholz.

 
Yup.  This is where I am.  You pick up the option, you put him in the 2016 rotation and let him go as far as he can.  If he goes 30 starts, great.  If he goes 15 before breaking down, they've got depth to pick him up.
 
I think it's insane to pick up the option specifically to trade him away.  If a deal presents itself, so be it.  But if the option gets picked up, it's with the idea of Clay Buchholz being on the Red Sox in 2016.

 

[czar]

Oh, sweet. A "should we or should we not pick up Buchholz's option?" discussion!

Not going to rehash my thoughts for the 15th time, but from previous threads...

Again, in a world where Justin Masterson gets 1/$10m and Porcello gets 4/$82 and Shields gets 4/$75, the Sox will certainly pick up Buchholz's option for 1/$13m (as long as he's healthy).
 
Aside from the fact that he was worth about $18m this year alone (assuming $6m/win, which is conservative -- FGval puts him more like $20something), if the Sox really wanted to move on from him, why would they just cut him as ballast, when a healthy Buchholz on a 1/$13m deal could bring back some sort of asset in return.
 
Kris Medlen got $8m guaranteed and $10m more in incentives over 2 years and the Royals knew he wasn't even going to pitch for 2/3 of 2015. I mean, think about it this way. If Buchholz comes back and looks healthy in September, don't you think at least one team would sign him essentially to the same contract Justin "5.88 ERA/can't get lefties out/no velocity" Masterson got?

I continue to struggle to wrap my head around the idea that people continue to say "I'd rather have a mediocre pitcher go for 220 IP than have Clay be elite for 110 and have his arm fall off." Like, we have ways to quantify that. Clay Buchholz's abbreviated 2015 has been approximately as valuable as Masterson's last three seasons combined. Of the 66 SP who threw 180 IP last year, 39 of them provided less value to their team (in those 180+ innings) than Clay Buchholz's abbreviated 2015
 
In a perfect world, you'd love to have 220 IP of this year's Clay Buchholz -- but those guys are named Kershaw, Kluber, Hernandez, and Price (going by last years rates). And there are definitely situations where a slightly lesser pitcher for 220 IP is better than Clay Buchholz (110 IP) + replacement P (110 IP). But I don't think people are grasping how insignificant having a pitcher go 220 IP if they aren't very good is.

Again, it is ludicrous to think that Clay Buchholz (provided "healthy") is possibly not worth 1/$13 on the open market. Even with his craptacular start to the season (and caveats about valuation aside), FG has him worth $25m this year (which assumes $/WAR ~ $8m) in like half a season. He is still the 19th most valuable pitcher in 2015 (out of 690 to appear in an MLB game) and he hasn't pitched in a month.
 
Last offseason, Jake Peavy got 2/$24 after posting half of Buchholz's 2015 WAR in twice the innings last year. Yovani Gallardo got 1/$13 and his rates have been trending the wrong way for years. Brett Anderson got 1/$10 and he hadn't thrown more than 100 innings in FIVE YEARS. Clay Buchholz will have non-negligible trade value on a 1/$13 + option for 1/$13. As Plympton pointed out, he has even MORE value (aside from the 1/$13) tied up in the fact that a team has the OPTION of keeping him around at $13m in 2017 (i.e., it's either ends up being a cheap 1/$13 roll of the dice if he sucks, or a 2/$26 steal if he pitches anywhere close to what he did this season).
 
The Sox will pick up the option unless his elbow falls off. There is no reason not to. The Sox can then decide whether to keep or trade him, but that's a totally separate question.

 

[ookami7m]

If nothing else, Buchholz on a one year deal for 13.5 mil, with a team option to repeat in 2017, would have some trade value.  Right?  So it's a no-brainer.  

 
 

A half a season of Buchholz this year was worth 2.7 bWAR, which is almost $18m by today's standards.
 
Fangraphs has him worth 3.2 fWAR, valued at a cool $25m.
 
$13m for half a season of Clay is a pretty good deal because a full season of healthy Clay is a Cy Young contender.
 
I know health is always a concern and it'd suck if he got injured and missed next year's playoff run, but I'm more concerned about getting into the playoffs first at this point.

 
Exactly. Unless Clay gets caught with in a compromising position with a pig or a bucket of chicken in the next few weeks this option gets picked up and the FO figures out what to do closer to the season.

 

[Pilgrim]

FWIW, the decision has already been made
 
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2015/08/dave_dombrowski_on_clay_buchho.html
 

NEW YORK – Boston Red Sox president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski said Friday afternoon that the decision to pick up pitcher Clay Buchholz's option will be an easy one as long as the righty is healthy.
 

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
I'm by no means a Buchholz fan, but how is this "only giving up" those players when you're taking on $81 million for an injured starter with a career ERA+ of 95? One year of an ace reliever, and maybe 65 innings of pitching, is worth a top prospect and $81 million? Bailey only fills a hole if that hole is the DL spot Buchholz may be in, or "bad Buchholz" if he's actually on the mound.
 
I'm not sure who you'd sell on Buchholz giving them more than a half season worth of starts, but I would hope he has more value than that dumpster fire of a trade.

 
I'm sorry, I guess I should have been more specific for you.
 
The hole I was talking about is the one where a pitcher who throws 200+ IP with an ERA under 4.00 should be. 
 
Bailey has done this. Twice. 2012-2013. And he was on his way to a third of these seasons again in 2014, until he suffered an elbow injury that eventually required surgery, and from which he appears to be recovering well. 
 
Buchholz has not done this. Thus the hole. Clay actually last approached that fabled land where durability and performance meet in 2010. Since then, it's one or the other; never both at the same time. And, of course, he may yet require surgery for an elbow injury that landed him on the DL since July.
 
Bailey's remaining contract is a good deal for 4 years of a #1/2 pitcher who profiles similar to John Lackey; I believe it would take real value to acquire him. I hope he's in the conversation as the possible "ace" which the Sox might not even really need so badly, now that the defense isn't bleeding runs from the pitching staff.  
 
Plus, there are no dumpster fires in my own personal world of magic rainbow unicorns.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

The problem is Bailey isn't a 1 or 2 in any fabled land, never mind the AL East. 200 innings is great, but is Bailey's total those two seasons over 200 adjusting for the quality of the average AL #9 hitter versus NL pitchers? $86 million (I didn't factor his buyout earlier) guaranteed for 3.5 years of Homer Bailey is an awful, awful deal, especially given that it's a gamble that he will even return to form. Lackey's career ERA+ was higher than the best single-season total Bailey has had in his entire career, so I don't see them as comps. Someone like Joe Blanton would be more apropos. 

 

[czar]

I'm sorry, I guess I should have been more specific for you.
 
The hole I was talking about is the one where a pitcher who throws 200+ IP with an ERA under 4.00 should be. 
 
Bailey has done this. Twice. 2012-2013. And he was on his way to a third of these seasons again in 2014, until he suffered an elbow injury that eventually required surgery, and from which he appears to be recovering well. 
 
Buchholz has not done this. Thus the hole. Clay actually last approached that fabled land where durability and performance meet in 2010. Since then, it's one or the other; never both at the same time. And, of course, he may yet require surgery for an elbow injury that landed him on the DL since July.
 
Bailey's remaining contract is a good deal for 4 years of a #1/2 pitcher who profiles similar to John Lackey; I believe it would take real value to acquire him. I hope he's in the conversation as the possible "ace" which the Sox might not even really need so badly, now that the defense isn't bleeding runs from the pitching staff.  
 
Plus, there are no dumpster fires in my own personal world of magic rainbow unicorns.

Homer Bailey has put up an fWAR better than Buchholz's abbreviated 2015 exactly once in his 9-year career.

I don't get this infatuation with a guy who throws 200 IP. It's pretty simple math... Assume Buchholz always breaks halfway through the year. If Buchholz gets you 100 IP of 3 WAR pitching, and Steven Wright is merely the textbook definition of replacement level for the other 100 IP (i.e., you have no other above replacement options in the minors), you still have a top 30 rotation slot in baseball. That is, in aggregate, the definition of a #1.

Why people continue to ask for mediocre pitchers instead of Buchholz because "they are horses!" is beyond me. Especially pitchers who cost a lot of money and are currently equally (if not more) broken as Buchholz.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I suppose some people are merely looking for a mediocre 200-inning guy.  I think  others of us see a couple of issues:
1.  There's only so much money to go around.  Even if we all agree that Buch is a good deal at $13.5M, that could well prevent the team from paying more to get a better starting pitcher.
2.  I don't agree that the math of 100 Clay innings + 100 Wright innings = #1 starter is quite that simple.  If Clay breaks down again, and is unavailable when the team is making a September playoff push with a bullpen that could be wearing thin late in the season, then having Wright in the rotation at that point is not going to be the same as having an actual "top 30" kind of guy pitching for you.  Nor would it be fun watching Wright be our playoff ace.
 
I want them to resign Buchholz, but I also want them to get someone better.  If that means they resign Clay to trade him, fine.  Or to allow them to trade someone else (Miley), fine. 

 

[mauidano]

Please.  Pick it up, cross your fingers.  Very easy choice.  He gets one more chance at a very good cost value.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Homer Bailey has put up an fWAR better than Buchholz's abbreviated 2015 exactly once in his 9-year career.

I don't get this infatuation with a guy who throws 200 IP. It's pretty simple math... Assume Buchholz always breaks halfway through the year. If Buchholz gets you 100 IP of 3 WAR pitching, and Steven Wright is merely the textbook definition of replacement level for the other 100 IP (i.e., you have no other above replacement options in the minors), you still have a top 30 rotation slot in baseball. That is, in aggregate, the definition of a #1.

Why people continue to ask for mediocre pitchers instead of Buchholz because "they are horses!" is beyond me. Especially pitchers who cost a lot of money and are currently equally (if not more) broken as Buchholz.

 
Haven't we discussed ad nauseum this season, that large uncertainty bars make WAR comparisons useless when we're talking less than 1 point differences?
 
Buchholz has had as high as 3.2 fWAR in any one season of his 9-year career. Bailey has had as high as 4.1 fWAR in any one season of his 9-year career.
 
But if you want to combine different players' seasons into an average, look no farther back than 2011. Buchholz, Matsuzaka, Aceves, and Bedard combined for 33 starts as a solid #3 starter (1.7 fWAR). Together, they helped Boston win the AL East.
 
The infatuation is simple: a "horse" can help pitch a team into the playoffs, and then pitch in the playoffs at a (hopefully) equivalent level.

 

[Toe Nash]

I suppose some people are merely looking for a mediocre 200-inning guy.  I think  others of us see a couple of issues:
1.  There's only so much money to go around.  Even if we all agree that Buch is a good deal at $13.5M, that could well prevent the team from paying more to get a better starting pitcher.
2.  I don't agree that the math of 100 Clay innings + 100 Wright innings = #1 starter is quite that simple.  If Clay breaks down again, and is unavailable when the team is making a September playoff push with a bullpen that could be wearing thin late in the season, then having Wright in the rotation at that point is not going to be the same as having an actual "top 30" kind of guy pitching for you.  Nor would it be fun watching Wright be our playoff ace.
 

1. If Clay was signed to a 4/$55m deal this would make sense, but it's a one-year commitment. They can go over the luxury tax for one year and they have done so frequently in the past. 
 
2. There is also just as much chance that he will get hurt mid-season and come back for the stretch run. Over the last three years, even with injuries knocking out parts of two seasons, he's 90th in MLB in games started, 87th in IP and 42nd in fWAR. That sounds like a guy who has trouble staying healthy but has been pretty good when he's healthy. I'd rather have that then a proven mediocrity who pitches more, precisely because you have a chance that you'll get the great pitcher for a playoff run. The calculus would be different if we didn't have the depth we do, but the Sox aren't lacking guys who can be a bit above replacement, they're lacking guys who can be great.
 
You're also ignoring that you can slot pitchers in any order. If Clay gets hurt for a postseason, Wright doesn't just step into his spot in the rotation. Presumably everyone else slides up one and Wright or whoever becomes the 5th starter...who doesn't need to pitch in a postseason run. So, presuming a depth chart of [FA or Trade guy] / Clay / EdRod / Porcello / Miley / Kelly / Owens / Wright you just move whoever's pitching best out of the Miley / Kelly / Owens crew into the postseason rotation and you give Porcello an extra start.

 

[czar]

Haven't we discussed ad nauseum this season, that large uncertainty bars make WAR comparisons useless when we're talking less than 1 point differences?

 
TBH, there's a difference in your confidence of dWAR and pWAR. Almost all of the arguments this year on the main board have been strictly limited to dWAR (in particular, things like Hanley's terrible defense or JBJ's Gold Glove).
 
pWAR is based off pretty boring, well-accepted, context-neutral stats. Is it perfect? No. Is there variance? Of course there is. Does any of this change the fact that it demonstrates that, when healthy, Buchholz is generally good (sometimes very good) and that Bailey (who is equally, if not more not healthy right now) has been OK for a few seasons, but mediocre for the rest of his career outside that? Not really.
 

But if you want to combine different players' seasons into an average, look no farther back than 2011. Buchholz, Matsuzaka, Aceves, and Bedard combined for 33 starts as a solid #3 starter (1.7 fWAR). Together, they helped Boston win the AL East.

 
If you think a rotation slot of those guys putting up a combined 1.7 fWAR was the reason the Sox didn't win the AL East well...
 
If Buchholz can be spun for someone who can be legitimately good all season, that's fine. Maybe you could even discount him just a tad if you are worried he'll get hurt and not pitch in the playoffs (and that IP in the playoffs are inherently more valuable than the regular season). But there is no reason to downgrade the rotation slot as a whole just so you can fill it with (hopefully) 1 guy instead of 2.
 
I also should point out that everyone around here seems to have 100% confidence in Buchholz not pitching 100 IP next as well as under the assumption that we can find (with 100% confidence) someone who will definitely not break down. Neither of those seem like a slam dunk to me.

 

[nvalvo]

Another thing: that 2017 option is pretty valuable, either to us or to a trade partner.

 

[glennhoffmania]

FWIW, the decision has already been made
 
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2015/08/dave_dombrowski_on_clay_buchho.html
 

 
But that's a pretty big qualifier he added there.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with paying a healthy Buchholz $13m.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
But that's a pretty big qualifier he added there.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with paying a healthy Buchholz $13m.

 
In the last week, Buchholz has successfully completed three bullpen sessions and all indications are he appears good to go.  The only reason he's not pitching in a game at this point is because there aren't enough games left on the schedule.  His health, at least at present, isn't going to be a reason to decline the option.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
In the last week, Buchholz has successfully completed three bullpen sessions and all indications are he appears good to go.  The only reason he's not pitching in a game at this point is because there aren't enough games left on the schedule.  His health, at least at present, isn't going to be a reason to decline the option.

Then there's no reason at all.

 

[alwyn96]

 
TBH, there's a difference in your confidence of dWAR and pWAR. Almost all of the arguments this year on the main board have been strictly limited to dWAR (in particular, things like Hanley's terrible defense or JBJ's Gold Glove).
 
pWAR is based off pretty boring, well-accepted, context-neutral stats. Is it perfect? No. Is there variance? Of course there is. Does any of this change the fact that it demonstrates that, when healthy, Buchholz is generally good (sometimes very good) and that Bailey (who is equally, if not more not healthy right now) has been OK for a few seasons, but mediocre for the rest of his career outside that? Not really.
 
 
If you think a rotation slot of those guys putting up a combined 1.7 fWAR was the reason the Sox didn't win the AL East well...
 
If Buchholz can be spun for someone who can be legitimately good all season, that's fine. Maybe you could even discount him just a tad if you are worried he'll get hurt and not pitch in the playoffs (and that IP in the playoffs are inherently more valuable than the regular season). But there is no reason to downgrade the rotation slot as a whole just so you can fill it with (hopefully) 1 guy instead of 2.
 
I also should point out that everyone around here seems to have 100% confidence in Buchholz not pitching 100 IP next as well as under the assumption that we can find (with 100% confidence) someone who will definitely not break down. Neither of those seem like a slam dunk to me.

 
I'm not sure what you mean by pWAR (is that just WAR for pitchers? If so, I'm not sure I've ever seen it used that way before), but there are actually some fairly big assumptions built into the fangraphs version of WAR compared to the baseballreference version. Although I guess "big assumptions" depends on exactly how much DIPS theory you like built in to your stats. Long story short - fangraphs WAR for pitchers involves a heavy dose of fielding independent pitching stats, whereas baseballreference doesn't. Fangraphs also throws a Leverage factor in there for relievers, so weirdly for relievers it's not actually context-neutral. So depending how strongly you feel about the assumptions underlying DIPS versus defensive stats, there are some "non-boring" things in there. WAR for pitchers certainly isn't as black-boxy as most fielding stats, though.
 
Anyway, aside from that dumb nitpick, I think we all generally agree that you probably pick up Buchholz' option if he's healthy enough, but if you can replace him with a better pitcher, that's probably a good move.

 

[czar]

 
I'm not sure what you mean by pWAR (is that just WAR for pitchers? If so, I'm not sure I've ever seen it used that way before), but there are actually some fairly big assumptions built into the fangraphs version of WAR compared to the baseballreference version. Although I guess "big assumptions" depends on exactly how much DIPS theory you like built in to your stats. Long story short - fangraphs WAR for pitchers involves a heavy dose of fielding independent pitching stats, whereas baseballreference doesn't. Fangraphs also throws a Leverage factor in there for relievers, so weirdly for relievers it's not actually context-neutral. So depending how strongly you feel about the assumptions underlying DIPS versus defensive stats, there are some "non-boring" things in there. WAR for pitchers certainly isn't as black-boxy as most fielding stats, though.
 
Anyway, aside from that dumb nitpick, I think we all generally agree that you probably pick up Buchholz' option if he's healthy enough, but if you can replace him with a better pitcher, that's probably a good move.

 
Yes, pWAR is pitcherWAR. I have a tendency to break things into oWAR, dWAR, pWAR, and brWAR. Offensive players are a combination of 1,2,4, but pitchers generally only have a pitching component (usually DIPS-type stats-based).
 
What I meant is that DIPS-type statistics are fairly well fleshed out and have a higher y-o-y correlation than even ERA. They are far more stable and correlated in time than defensive metrics which go into dWAR are. So a lot of the blowback against WAR here at SoSH this year has been regarding large defensive components which offset/amplify more readily understood (and accepted) offensive components.
 
The bolded is what I'm getting at.

 

[tims4wins]

If one year of Masterson was worth $10m to them then I am pretty sure one year of Clay is worth $13.5m to them

 

[radsoxfan]

If one year of Masterson was worth $10m to them then I am pretty sure one year of Clay is worth $13.5m to them

 
Just because you make one mistake doesn't mean you have to make another, so I'm not sure thats the most convincing "pro-Clay" argument. 
 
Having said that, Clay's option would seem to be almost entirely a medical decision.  Hard to argue he isn't worth a 1 yr 13 M deal if he is healthy or at least likely to be healthy.  If they really need that 13M to get an ace on the FA market, and there is a hard budget, they can always make a trade.  If Clay is OK, he should have positive trade value on that contract.
 
From the outside, there is always going to be some concern that a pitcher with a recent relatively long term elbow injury that hasn't yet proven he can return to his previous form has something more serious going on.  If the bullpen sessions went well, and the physical exam and MRI are convincing that he indeed just had a flexor tendon/muscle injury but his UCL is OK (or at least as OK as these MLB pitchers' UCLs usually are), they will pick it up.  

 

[shaggydog2000]

 
Just because you make one mistake doesn't mean you have to make another, so I'm not sure thats the most convincing "pro-Clay" argument. 
 

 
It does show recent market value.  It's hard to get anyone even remotely decent on a one year contract for 10-14 mil.  Add in an option year that is team only, and that list would go down even further.  I'm going to guess if you found an example of a recent contract like that, it would be for a guy who had a really, really bad injury history over the short term, far worse than Buchholz.  

 

[Green Monster]

I think Clay has some solid trade value, if the Sox decide to go that direction.  I could definitely see someone like Beane bumping his value in the large AL west ballparks and then flipping him at the 2016 or 2017 trade deadline.  This is essentially the same thing Beane just did with Kazmir. 

 

[Drek717]

The only real questions that could modify Buchholz' future with the Red Sox are:
1. Is he healthy? All signs point to yes and none of us will have the inside info on that before his option is exercised anyhow, the Sox FO does.
 
2. What is the Sox 2016 budget?  Is it big enough to give Clay $13M and still sign an ace?  If not then Clay's $13M is a big chunk of money that can be moved easily, probably for pretty decent return.  If the budget for 2016 is flexible enough to make it work then obviously the Sox should keep him, as with Owens and Johnson in AAA they will be more able to benefit from even a half season of elite pitching than most other clubs.  Buchholz + Owens teaming for 200 IP in 2016 that also pushes Owens service clock out another year would probably tally up somewhere in the #2 starter range.  If they can afford him while still getting Price/Cueto/Zimmermann that's a pretty nice setup to have in the three hole (behind EdRod).

 

[nvalvo]

I wonder what the Royals would give us for Buchholz on a 1/$13, with a club option for $13 in 2017. They need high-end pitching to keep this window open, but can't afford to pay market rates. 

 

[ALiveH]

Fangraphs had Clay worth $25M this year with his 113 IPs of 2.68 FIP.  The previous two years they have him worth $11M and $21M, even with all the health problems.  Easy decision as long as he can start next year healthy with similar stuff as this year.  If you don't want him on the Sox, fine trade him.  There would be plenty of takers who would send back real value at that price.  Maybe we can get back an elite reliever for him or he'd be part of a package for an elite SP.
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3543&position=P

 

[Cellar-Door]

Picked up.
 
https://twitter.com/RedSox/status/661600324130611201

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

I hope they're trading him.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I hope they're trading him.

 
For what, exactly?  I believe he has value, especially with his contract and the option for next year, but the value is tied to his health.  He's only proven to the Red Sox, behind closed doors, that he's healthy enough to keep around.  He hasn't pitched in anger since July, so I can see other teams being skeptical.  I'm just wondering what team is willing to take a chance on him and what they'd offer the Red Sox that would be of more immediate value.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I hope they're trading him.

 
I go back and forth on this. You could make a pretty good argument that the presence of EdRo, Owens, and Kelly--who all (1) have shown the talent to be solid MLB starters, (2) have not yet shown they can do that for a whole season, and (3) have multiple options remaining--makes giving a rotation slot to a guy with a pretty high risk of pitching <20 starts a less scary idea than it would be for a team with less flexibility and depth. And the flip side is that if he's healthy for a whole year for once, that could be tremendous bang for buck.
 
I realize that keeping Buchholz and acquiring a new #1 would mean that only one of Rodriguez, Kelly and Owens can start the year in the rotation. And maybe that's an inefficient use of resources. But there could be worse problems to have. I think DD should take a "make me an offer I can't refuse" approach. There's no pressing need to trade a pitcher, but there's enough depth that he shouldn't hesitate to bite on a good offer.

 

[chrisfont9]

Isn't the impetus to trade him solely based on "he might get hurt again," which is unknowable and far from certain? Seems like a team desperate for an ace, who has a guy who could be an ace if he doesn't get hurt, might want to hang on to him rather than dealing him for the "injury risk" discount?

 

[ALiveH]

I assume if the sox shop him his medicals will be open kimono.  That being said, it's hard for me to envision a scenario where he's traded.

 

[Plympton91]

 
I realize that keeping Buchholz and acquiring a new #1 would mean that only one of Rodriguez, Kelly and Owens can start the year in the rotation. And maybe that's an inefficient use of resources. But there could be worse problems to have. I think DD should take a "make me an offer I can't refuse" approach. There's no pressing need to trade a pitcher, but there's enough depth that he shouldn't hesitate to bite on a good offer.

 
The Rodriguez, Kelly, and Owens problem doesn't really exist in my mind.  Rodriguez is in the starting rotation, Kelly should be groomed as a relief ace, and Owens can continue to refine the command of his junkballs in AAA.   Given the lack of an infinite payroll, and the need for 2 aces to compete credibly, grabbing an 80th percentile performance from Buchholz at below market value is key.

 

[Rasputin]

 
The Rodriguez, Kelly, and Owens problem doesn't really exist in my mind.  Rodriguez is in the starting rotation, Kelly should be groomed as a relief ace, and Owens can continue to refine the command of his junkballs in AAA.   Given the lack of an infinite payroll, and the need for 2 aces to compete credibly, grabbing an 80th percentile performance from Buchholz at below market value is key.

 
If Kelly develops what he needs to develop to be a relief ace, he'd be an excellent starter. 
 
When you say things like "the need for 2 aces to compete credibly" you lack credibility.
 
We're going to bring in an ace. If we don't send a starting pitcher away, that means we're going to have Ace, Buchholz, Rodriguez, Miley, Porcello, and Kelly in the rotation even with Owens and Johnson back in AAA. Having more than five starting pitchers over the course of a season is a necessity. Having more than five at any given moment is an issue. None of these guys should be going to the minors. None of them should be going to the bullpen. One of them is probably going to have to go to another team.
 
By the way, I think the performance of Owens and Johnson to day should do a lot to quell the fears of missing out on whatever Buchholz can give us this year. Sure, neither is likely to be as high quality as he can be, but should he be traded, we wouldn't be looking for quality from them, but depth. It's Ace, Rodriguez, Porcello, and Kelly that we'd be looking for quality from.
 
Someone in a thread somewhere suggested exploring a trade of Buchholz to the Royals because they're going to be looking to try to extend their window with reasonably priced talent and Buchholz seems like he might be an excellent gamble for them. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
When you say things like "the need for 2 aces to compete credibly" you lack credibility.

 
Damn right.  Who exactly are the Royals two "aces" that allowed them to compete credibly this year?  By all measures, they were well in control of the AL Central race (8 games up) before they acquired Cueto, the nominal ace.  Their Opening Day starter (the presumed "ace" of the staff) was sent to AAA in June due to ineffectiveness.  And if the Red Sox had signed the guy who was statistically their "ace" (most starts, most IP, lowest ERA) last winter when he was a free agent, no one here would have been doing back-flips that they had The Answer for the 2015 rotation.

 

[nvalvo]

I think This idea that P91 is invoking — two aces are the key! — is the long hangover of the 2001 Diamondbacks. Back in the steroid-driven, CBA-enabled Golden Age of Free Agency that made possible the dynastic Yankees, that was probably right. Anything short of four starts from elite SP in a seven game series and the deep lineups of the Jeter/Williams/Posada Yankees or Bonds/Kent Giants would thrash you. Adding Schilling to Martinez certainly helped Boston in 2004. 
 
But more recently? Unless we start counting John Lackey-types, I'd say the last WS winner to have two aces was probably the 2010 Giants, with Lincecum and Cain. Even then, Lincecum's decline from his Cy Young seasons was already well advanced, so maybe that was more like 1.5 in spite of his great postseason (recall his 14K CGSO against Atlanta). 
 
Before that, the Sabathia postseason in '09 papered over the unreliability of the NY rotation as Burnett and Pettitte faltered down the stretch. The '08 Phillies were Cole Hamels and some dudes. Beckett and Schilling in 2007? Even if the 2013 Sox are included, you'd at best be able to say that high-end SP depth is one way to go deep in the postseason. 
 
And there's a way that the pitching driven teams seem as often to disappoint expectations of late, maybe because of the way that a lot of people still keep that 2001 DBacks model in mind. The recent vintages of the Washington ballclub have had all sorts of aces, but nary a pennant. LA and Detroit have similarly failed to live up to sky-high expectations driven by the rotation. The Mets had an excellent run, but the imbalance of that roster may have caught up with them in the end. 

 

[czar]

 
If Kelly develops what he needs to develop to be a relief ace, he'd be an excellent starter. 
 
When you say things like "the need for 2 aces to compete credibly" you lack credibility.
 
We're going to bring in an ace. If we don't send a starting pitcher away, that means we're going to have Ace, Buchholz, Rodriguez, Miley, Porcello, and Kelly in the rotation even with Owens and Johnson back in AAA. Having more than five starting pitchers over the course of a season is a necessity. Having more than five at any given moment is an issue. None of these guys should be going to the minors. None of them should be going to the bullpen. One of them is probably going to have to go to another team.
 
By the way, I think the performance of Owens and Johnson to day should do a lot to quell the fears of missing out on whatever Buchholz can give us this year. Sure, neither is likely to be as high quality as he can be, but should he be traded, we wouldn't be looking for quality from them, but depth. It's Ace, Rodriguez, Porcello, and Kelly that we'd be looking for quality from.
 
Someone in a thread somewhere suggested exploring a trade of Buchholz to the Royals because they're going to be looking to try to extend their window with reasonably priced talent and Buchholz seems like he might be an excellent gamble for them. 

 
I don't disagree that trading one of the ML starters might be a way to maximize value, but I disagree with the notion that Kelly can't go to the pen/minors. I know everyone is suddenly high on him because of his last 6-7 starts, but I saw nothing that changed in his pitch mix or peripherals (Kory agrees) that leads me to believe that he's suddenly going to be anything more than a 1-2 fWAR pitcher/200 IP. Which is fine, but not "must keep in rotation" material.
 
TBH, I'm actually more interested in seeing if someone bites on Kelly as a SP, but I've been lower than most on him for a couple years now. Plus, in a situation with above-replacement players in AAA, I'd rather gamble on the theoretical upside of Buchholz as a SP than somebody who might throw 80 more innings with much more mediocre peripherals.

 

[alwyn96]

 
If Kelly develops what he needs to develop to be a relief ace, he'd be an excellent starter. 
 
When you say things like "the need for 2 aces to compete credibly" you lack credibility.
 
We're going to bring in an ace. If we don't send a starting pitcher away, that means we're going to have Ace, Buchholz, Rodriguez, Miley, Porcello, and Kelly in the rotation even with Owens and Johnson back in AAA. Having more than five starting pitchers over the course of a season is a necessity. Having more than five at any given moment is an issue. None of these guys should be going to the minors. None of them should be going to the bullpen. One of them is probably going to have to go to another team.
 
By the way, I think the performance of Owens and Johnson to day should do a lot to quell the fears of missing out on whatever Buchholz can give us this year. Sure, neither is likely to be as high quality as he can be, but should he be traded, we wouldn't be looking for quality from them, but depth. It's Ace, Rodriguez, Porcello, and Kelly that we'd be looking for quality from.
 
Someone in a thread somewhere suggested exploring a trade of Buchholz to the Royals because they're going to be looking to try to extend their window with reasonably priced talent and Buchholz seems like he might be an excellent gamble for them. 

 
Trading Buchholz to the Royals sounds interesting, maybe they could get...man, the Royals don't have many prospects left. Maybe they can get Kyle Zimmer and package him out for someone more immediately useful. 
 
Maybe I'm just depressed from lack of baseball, but counting on quality (or innings) from Kelly seems pretty optimistic to me. I'm not sure Kelly can be reasonably counted on to be anything more than a 5th starter at this point. I'm not even sure he's been able to put it together for a particularly impressive month. Even his superficially impressive August was mostly driven by a fairly lucky LOB and HR/FB, with pretty pedestrian K% and BB%. Even going back into previous years, his brief brushes with success have rarely been backed up by his peripherals. He's never had an above average FIP in a season, he's never demonstrated an ability to handle a full season's workload without breaking down, and he's coming off one of the worst seasons of his career (ERA-wise).
 
You gotta love the big fastball, but unless Kelly can get people out with it, it's as useful as Doubront's great curveball. There's a long list of starters who couldn't actually get hitters out with their stuff until they switched to relief.
 
EDIT: Ok, I'm more disagreeable and I came down on Kelly harder than I meant to, which I'm chalking up to baseball-less grumpiness. February is too far away. And somehow watching Kelly not knowing how to harness his decent stuff was more frustrating than watching a guy with middling stuff be ok.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
Damn right.  Who exactly are the Royals two "aces" that allowed them to compete credibly this year?  By all measures, they were well in control of the AL Central race (8 games up) before they acquired Cueto, the nominal ace.  Their Opening Day starter (the presumed "ace" of the staff) was sent to AAA in June due to ineffectiveness.  And if the Red Sox had signed the guy who was statistically their "ace" (most starts, most IP, lowest ERA) last winter when he was a free agent, no one here would have been doing back-flips that they had The Answer for the 2015 rotation.

If the Red Sox are guaranteed to acquire three of the best bullpen arms in the league instead of another ace, that could work.

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

Buchholz is a good contract, but that doesn't mean he's a good fit on this team. The team has a bunch of question marks on the pitching staff under decent contracts, and Porcello. At some point you need to stop going for value and start going for reliability and quality. Buchholz could be the latter, but he's certainly not the former. Yes, all pitchers are volatile, but he is especially so. Trade him to a team for a prospect. He has value as a #3 and #4 starter that could emerge as something better. He'd be a really good fit for KC.
 
We know E.Rod, Porcello, and likely Miley (unless he's traded) will be in the rotation in 2016. My perspective going in February 2015 was I like the pitching moves provided that they haven't yet acquired their ace. If they go into 2016 without a pitcher better than that trio, they're screwed. Ideally they'd wind up with a #1 and #2 with the back three being E.Rod, Porcello, and Miley, but if they go into the season with Buchholz on their roster as well as the other 3, they will fail.
 
We know the names that keep getting thrown around, and they're going to cost money or prospects. They need an ace or two, and they need to improve the bullpen. All assets, cash and tradable prospects should be devoted to those two things.

 

[Rasputin]

If the Red Sox are guaranteed to acquire three of the best bullpen arms in the league instead of another ace, that could work.

One rotation ace and one bullpen ace, and we've got a good shot.

Chapman, Koji, Taz, Layne, Wright is the start of a really good bullpen. Add a better lefty than Layne and I'm good, at least to start the season.