Would You …

… trade Clay Buchholz, Wily Mo Pena and another one or two prospects for Roy Oswalt and Brad Lidge?

I think I would.

42 comments… add one
  • …in a heartbeat…but i’m not sure if houston would find it attractive enough…wilymo’s just a throw-in so the sox can dump him, so that doesn’t count for much…i like buchholz….he’s been very good at the A, AA level…has he had any AAA experience yet?…couldn’t find that on his stat sheet…not sure who your other “prospects” are, but you might need to sweeten the pot to get both oswalt and lidge…so far you got clay for roy and brad, and i don’t know if that’s good enough…by the way, is this a legit rumor?…

    dc July 16, 2007, 8:30 am
  • No question. Trade a future (possible) tier-1 star for a current tier-1 star any day.

    Anonymous July 16, 2007, 8:38 am
  • Buchholz debuts tonite at AAA

    TJ July 16, 2007, 9:13 am
  • Kind of odd that Cincy is also looking to trade Arroyo. Looks like the original trade did not pan out for anyone.

    Rob July 16, 2007, 9:16 am
  • I’d say it panned out for the Reds considering that Arroyo did at least have one great year for the Reds. He’ll probably be able to yield them a decent return on the market.

    Nick-YF July 16, 2007, 9:33 am
  • I’d welcome Bronson back too, but as far as the other “trade” is concerned: In a nanosecond. Unless someone ran into the stupid tree this morning on the way to work in Houston, this isn’t going to happen without Boston really sweetening the deal for them. Bucholtz is nasty, but they’re going to have to throw in more than just WMP and other “prospects” to get that done.

    Regular_Brad. July 16, 2007, 9:48 am
  • spelling….sorry.

    Regular_Brad. July 16, 2007, 9:49 am
  • Oswalt and Lidge for 1 decent prospect? Dream on.

    YF July 16, 2007, 9:53 am
  • I agree with Brad here. Oswalt is just too good and valuable (his contract looks reasonable given last off-season’s crazy inflation) to trade for only 1 top prospect and filler. I imagine they’d be asking for two top-flight prospects at the very least. The Astros aren’t forced into a corner here. They don’t have a player who wants to go or they’re about to lose to free-agency so you have to think they’re going to get a big return for him if they trade him. And remember the Sox won’t be the only team interested. The Mets would be a good match, and the Yanks would do well to acquire Oswalt.

    Nick-YF July 16, 2007, 9:55 am
  • The Yanks’ offer of Joba, Kennedy, Cano and Melky for Oswalt, Lidge and Burke. Maybe that would be enough? Probably not.

    Nick-YF July 16, 2007, 9:57 am
  • na, I think that gets it done over Boston’s offer, Nick. I think Boston has to offer somewhere along the lines of Bucholz, Crisp, WMP, Delcarmen, and probably another B prospect.
    I’d rather not lose Bucholz and Delcarmen, but I still make that trade…
    Where did this idea come from anyhow?

    Regular_Brad. July 16, 2007, 10:25 am
  • I basically agree with YF here, but I also think he hasn’t clearly read Paul’s qualifier, which clearly says “plus one or two prospects”. Would be nice if he could get to the end of a post before beginning his bluntly dismissive comment. Good to have him back. I think. ;-)
    Nonetheless, even with three prospects plus WMP, it’s a dream (unless it’s three of Lowrie/Bowden/Buchholz/Ellsbury on the prospects side, and I don’t see that happening).
    One caveat: some GMs are stupid. Some GMs make stupid deals at deadlines. Scott Kazmir was once traded for Victor Zambrano, we all must remember. So though dream scenarios rarely happen, they DO happen. A bit like Jim Carrey in “Dumb and Dumber” elating that he still has a chance with Lauren Holley after she tells him his odds are about one in a million…

    SF July 16, 2007, 11:25 am
  • great reference, SF. What a good movie that is.

    Regular_Brad. July 16, 2007, 11:47 am
  • YF does miss the point, which is that the other prospects need not just be filler. I could do either of the Hansen/Delcarmen combo and either of the Moss/Murphy combo, plus Pena and maybe one other.
    I was really trying to do a couple things:
    1. Figure out how untradeable Buccholz really is.
    2. Figure out what we as Sox fans would want to see the team give up for a player like Oswalt.
    And 3. What we has baseball fans think Oswalt is worth.
    Maybe it’s a pipe dream, but we know the Sox wanted Oswalt last year. We know they’re in the running for Lidge (if he’s even available) this year. It makes sense for the Sox to attempt a blockbuster and get both. I’m just not sure if either side would get close to agreeing on who the Sox would give up.

    Paul SF July 16, 2007, 12:23 pm
  • Paul, I honestly don’t see those combos doing it for the Stros. Try Ellsbury and Bucholz and Hansen and Wily Mo, and then maybe…
    I will say no prospect is untradeable. If I were Cashman, and the Oswalt and Lidge were the possible return I’d think seriously about sending Hughes and Joba and other prospects.

    Nick-YF July 16, 2007, 12:30 pm
  • “The Yanks’ offer of Joba, Kennedy, Cano and Melky for Oswalt, Lidge and Burke. Maybe that would be enough? Probably not.”
    Even if that was enough, I would pass. Burke plays second and OF, so by trading Melky and Robbie we then have a hole open at either of those spots. Secondly I have zero interest in Lidge. He is a mental midget and if he can’t get it done in Houston, why would anyone think he could do it in NY? I like Oswalt, but I don’t think even with him we are a contender come October.
    Like I said last week, trade Alex. Get something in return and target the Angels. Wood, Kotchman and a SP. All of those things fill a need for us. Rather then waiting until season’s end and watch Alex go away with nothing to show for it.
    If I were the Red Sox I would offer Ellsbury and Buchholz for just Oswalt. I think they would make that trade, move Pence to right, Ellsbury to CF and you have yourselves quite the OF.

    John - YF (Trisk) July 16, 2007, 12:40 pm
  • Theoretically, you should always trade a minor league stud (and Buchholz is close to approaching Phil Hughes status within RSN and possibly the organization, at this point) for a Major League stud. Oswalt is a more accomplished pitcher than Beckett was at the time of his acquisition. Debating whether Buchholz should go to Houston for someone like Oswalt is a silly debate: of COURSE he should be sent to Houston, if that’s all it took. But Paul (nor anyone) is suggesting that; the question is how much in addition to Buchholz should the Sox be willing to give to get a guy like Oswalt.
    Here’s the rub: if the Sox tell every team that Clay Buchholz is now available in a trade, who are the teams that become possible partners? If the Sox make Ellsbury AND Buchholz available as a tandem, does Miguel Cabrera start entering conversations? In other words, why fixate on a single player? If the team is comfortable with moving their best prospect (and perhaps, now, the best pitching prospect in all of baseball), then FIELD OFFERS for the guy. This was Jeff Wilpon’s Jim Duquette’s cardinal sin when trading Kazmir. If Kazmir was a tradeable asset (and like some have said, NOBODY should be considered untradeable, particularly not for the big-money teams), then the Mets should have at least broadcast this to the league; they could have done FAR better than Zambrano from countless other teams.

    SF July 16, 2007, 12:53 pm
  • I think trading Alex is a non-starter. It makes sense in some way and other ways I don’t like it. But the main thing is that A-Rod would have to waive his no-trade clause and I just don’t think that’s likely at all. Plus, the Yanks would be admitting the season is over and that won’t happen until they’re 10 games out with no games left. These are the Yankees! I don’t know about whether A-Rod plans to walk away at the end of the season. I don’t know how Ken Rosenthal or anyone else knows either. This is a tricky situation and I hope the Yanks play it right.
    about the proposal. I see what you’re saying. Oswalt is the main draw of course, and he’s basically already what we hope Hughes or Joba could become. Plus, his contract is a very good one–he’s locked for another 4 years after 2007 at a good price. The truth is I’m not sure what to think of Cano and Melky at this point. Melky seems to be a great defender and a develping hitter, and I’m higher on him right now. However, there are two very good center fielders on the market this off-season, and the Yanks could address that need through that avenue. I’m down on Cano. He just doesn’t have a good approach at the plate. And Lidge does address a big need in the bullpen. He has the stuff certainly to be a top reliever.

    Nick-YF July 16, 2007, 12:54 pm
  • Nick you and I aren’t far off here. I don’t think Melky is a star by any means, but he is a star-ter. If we were to give up both Melky and Robbie, that leaves a hole somewhere. It would mean either Cairo plays every day at 2B or Burke plays 2B and JD plays everyday in CF, LOL (I only laugh because that would mean he would have to be healthy)
    As for Alex, I don’t think by trading him they are throwing up the white flag at all. Sure he is our offense this year, but Kotchman fills a hole at 1B and he’s young. Wood is a power hitting SS that will eventually be moved to 3B if A-Rod doesn’t go to the LAA and who knows which SP we get…So we need to find a 3B until season’s end, not a huge deal give Shea a call or make another trade for a decent everyday guy.

    John - YF (Trisk) July 16, 2007, 1:03 pm
  • I think big money teams should be wary of trading prospects for highly paid players. The reason is that they can be players in the free agent market, and bid away the lesser competitions. I know this is not the case for Oswalt but maybe the some teams should have been whispering offers in his agents ear. Are teams really disappointed they didnt trade valuable prospects for Zito. This mindset needs to be adjusted for strech run players. If you have the money overpay on the free market so at least you can have a farm system stocked.

    Seth July 16, 2007, 1:17 pm
  • the more I think about it, the more I wouldn’t do the trade I mentioned. Too much. And I want to see Hughes and Joba develop in pinstripes.

    Nick-YF July 16, 2007, 1:20 pm
  • Why, exactly, are the Sox trading their top prospect when they have a 9-game division lead? Even Theo “Cash Register” Epstein can’t have that kind of budgetary freedom, can he?
    And why would the Yanks take a flyer on Oswalt’s money when Hughes was last seen tossing a no-no at league minimum? The pitching staff is already set-up for the second half.

    YF July 16, 2007, 3:38 pm
  • in response to original post: count me glad you’re not the GM of the sox.

    beth July 16, 2007, 3:44 pm
  • And why would the Yanks…
    Beacause, they’re ten, err, nine games out nearing the end of July with a two hundred million dollar payroll. You don’t hold onto “hope” like Hughes and Bucholz when you have proof in Oswalt.
    Why would you? If money isn’t the biggest factor, which it never is with these two teams, why pass on a sure thing for something that you aren’t so sure of. Being one of the most dominant pitchers in the league for decent money certainly does.
    At least we know Oswalt is healthy and dependable, which is more than we can say for Lester or Hughes..

    Regular_Brad. July 16, 2007, 4:03 pm
  • jesus that came out wrong.. I really should preview sometimes..lol.

    Anonymous July 16, 2007, 4:04 pm
  • really, the point of such a trade is not only to make your team better for today, but also for tomorrow. I don’t agree with YF or beth here. If the Astros came to Theo with an offer of Oswalt and Lidge for Bucholz, Wily Mo, Murphy and Hansen, Theo would be crazy to reject such an offer.
    Brad is right. We have a proven ace pitcher in Oswalt and in your prospects we have..well…prospects. Moreover, Oswalt has proven himself to be durable and is locked up at a very reasonable price for the next 4 years.
    You need only look at yesterday’s Yanks-DRays match-up to understand that a pitching prospect is not a sure-thing. Edwin Jackson was a pitching prospect on the level of Joba and Bucholz a few years ago. Dodgers fans were saying similar things about him as we are saying about Hughes and Bucholz. The Dodgers brought him up at the age of 19. And look at him now. In a span of two years, he lost his elite status and yielder Dennys Baez in return. And Jackson’s now pitching to a 6 ERA with Tampa Bay.

    Nick-YF July 16, 2007, 4:20 pm
  • Why, Beth? Do you think Buchholz is going to be BETTER than Oswalt?
    YF, why not? Oswalt is reasonably priced, young enough to be a factor for years to come. The fact that such a move would also help short-term is just gravy to the long-term benefits.

    Paul SF July 16, 2007, 4:21 pm
  • ah, the beauty of YFSF: a yanks fan and two sox fans disagree with a yanks fan and a sox fan.

    Nick-YF July 16, 2007, 4:25 pm
  • I think we’re thinking along the lines of “giving up top notch prospects for againg proven player” when in reality, the player we’re talking about, like Beckett and others, are still in the twenties. They’re not Kevin Brown or Randy Johnson. These two animals can’t be compared. Getting a guy like Oswalt is going to give you the best years of his playing time.. It’s like getting another Beckett for your rotation, which if happened would be:
    Beckett
    Oswalt
    Matsuzaka
    Schilling
    Wakefield.
    wowzers.

    Anonymous July 16, 2007, 4:32 pm
  • Anon’s were me.

    Brad July 16, 2007, 4:33 pm
  • OF COURSE you do that deal. It’s OSWALT, for f***’s sake. He’s young enough and he’s excellent. Even if you have to swallow a year of adjustment to the AL, Oswalt is an incredible pitcher. Yes, absolutely, for Buchholz, Wily Mo, Ellsbury (never mind Lidge, not really interested). I don’t know about Lowrie, though, just because of the dearth of infield talent in the system. I think I might hold on to that guy.
    I don’t know anything about Buchholz, but Oswalt is fantastic NOW. Buchholz may be good someday. It’s a point practically everyone has made, but it’s just true.

    Devine July 16, 2007, 4:57 pm
  • Seriously, YF, how could the Yankees (or any team, for that matter) not be interested in a guy like Oswalt? The asking prices thrown out here are all fantasy, but it would be negligent for either Epstein or Cashman to not inquire about Oswalt, at the very least.
    The Yankees’ rotation may be set up for the second half, but what about ’08? As has been mentioned, Oswalt isn’t a deadline free-agent-to-be, he’s a relative bargain and an ace.
    Then again, this isn’t Esteban Loaiza, so I’d understand if Cashman took a pass.

    SF July 16, 2007, 5:01 pm
  • I’d set the odds of Buchholz becoming Oswalt very high. The same for Hughes: if he provides the same value as Oswalt over the next few years that would be a major, major accomplishment. It’s possible, but highly unlikely. I’d set the odds of Ellsbury + Buchholz giving the Sox the value of Oswalt over the next four years quite high, though perhaps not as high as the first scenario, and based on the excitement around both of these kids I’m less inclined to jump at a deal like this, though I see it’s merit. I’d likewise set the odds of Oswalt providing more value to the Yankees than Joba Chamberlain and, say, Robi Cano as extremely low, conversely, far worse than even money.
    Thank goodness I am not a GM and don’t have to make these decisions. The one thing I do know: FREE WILY. As in: send him on a long swim somewhere far, far away.

    SF July 16, 2007, 5:07 pm
  • The Yankees aren’t going to trade their big chits now. It makes no sense. And why ever trade Hughes? Look down the road on that: would you rather have Ozwalt at 15 million a year, or Hughes and a top fa (Santana) for 18-20 million a year? Cheaper and better to hold.

    YF July 16, 2007, 5:22 pm
  • Also, I can’t imagine the Sox making such a drastic move now. Why? They’ve got Beckett and Matsuzaka humming, Schilling will come back, and Wake is Wake. With a huge division lead and a huge payroll, why go spending more money? They look set up for the playoffs. I’d expect Theo to find a fix for his Lugo problem (i can’t imagine this will break the bank/farm), but sit tight for a month unless the Yanks make a big move. Which is certainly plausible. But, I don’t see Theo jumping the gun.

    YF July 16, 2007, 5:30 pm
  • Would the Yankees seriously hold off on obtaining Oswalt because it would cost $10 million more than having Hughes instead? Or hold off on chasing Santana because they’ve already committed $10M a year to Oswalt?

    Paul SF July 16, 2007, 5:32 pm
  • If I posed the question “why should the Sox EVER trade Buchholz?”, would you have an answer, YF? I am seriously curious. I personally don’t believe that the Yankees should trade Hughes for Oswalt, but the idea that the Yankees shouldn’t even discuss what it might take to get Oswalt is stupid. Are you saying this? It seems so.
    Buchholz has put up equal or better numbers than Hughes at the same stage in his pitching career, and he’s on the same path, talked about in the same manner of praise that Hughes was, though a year behind. But I see no reason why he shouldn’t be untouchable (that’s not to say the Sox should actively TRY to trade the guy, hardly). But the Sox are a team that can afford to go out and get guys like Daisuke Matsuzaka, so why shouldn’t they be willing to leverage their minor league depth in the interest of winning ballgames? Every club should be willing to do this within their means, whatever those might be (and we’ll never know…)

    SF July 16, 2007, 5:34 pm
  • I’d expect Theo to find a fix for his Lugo problem
    This appears to be far less of a problem than it was two weeks ago. The Sox need someone to locate Manny Ramirez’ batspeed and trade for that.

    SF July 16, 2007, 5:36 pm
  • Trade speculation aside, what’s eating me is the spate of one-run losses so far in July:
    * 2-1 to Texas, July 1st
    * 3-2 to Detroit July 7th
    * 6-5 to Detroit July 8th
    * 6-5 to Toronto July 13th
    * 2-1 to Toronto July 15th
    What gives?

    Hudson July 16, 2007, 5:48 pm
  • The Sox scored 2 runs too little.

    AndrewYF July 16, 2007, 5:54 pm
  • Bill Jamesophiles would say “it’s just bad luck!”, as if to dismiss poor play. I say “poor play!”, as opposed to “bad luck”.
    But I am a cynic, to some extent.
    Yesterday: 11 hits, one run. A bunt with your two fastest runners on base and nobody out, a double play from your best hitter follows. That’s not bad luck, that’s bad baseball.

    SF July 16, 2007, 5:56 pm
  • 1. Roy Oswalt is 30 years old next month. That’s not Beckett-old; he’s over 3 years older then Josh was when he became a Red Sox…which is fairly significant when you’re talking about starting pitchers. The decline phase starts at 31-32, and Roy is almost there…
    2. Oswalt’s got a complete No-trade clause. He signed at a discount because he owns an enormous farm/ranch thing in Texas…I don’t see any way in hell he agrees to a trade to New England.
    That said, I like Oswalt and would be OK with dealing Buchholz for him. But Buchholz+Delcarmen+Ellsbury+WMP or something like that for him and Lidge? F*ck no. Never. I’d rather have Delcarmen then the headcase that is Brad Lidge anyway. Since the ‘Stros have their CF of the future in Hunter Pence, I don’t really see a deal here…but I’d be OK with 3 of the Buchholz/Moss/Lowrie/Hansen group.
    PS: I think there’s at least a pretty good possibility Buchholz ends up a better pitcher then Oswalt. Oswalt doesn’t actually have great strikeout numbers, and Buchholz does…I’m not saying it’ll happen, but it could. Plus Houston’s a major pitcher’s park in a pitchers’ league.

    desturbd1 July 16, 2007, 6:56 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.