SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Red Sox acquire LHP Drew Pomeranz for RHP Anderson Espinoza
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 20, 2016 19:58:25 GMT -5
Did the Red Sox Really Overpay for Drew Pomeranz? by Dave Cameron - July 19, 2016 www.fangraphs.com/blogs/did-the-red-sox-really-overpay-for-drew-pomeranz/depends on assumptions some of you will question, but: "To me, this looks like the Red Sox and Padres identified the prospect in Boston’s system that was worth something very close to what Pomeranz is worth, and settled on a reasonable swap that makes sense for both sides. This one doesn’t look like Dombrowski undervaluing prospects to me; Espinoza is fun to dream on, but when factoring his risks in, he’s probably not as valuable as his “#15 ovearll prospect” status makes him sound. He’s a good get for the Padres, who should be betting on upside, but this is the kind of prospect that the Red Sox could afford to move. And for Pomeranz, this looks like the right return for both sides." Well...4 "tremendous innings" way to go Dave! This guy is worse than Buchholz. At least in his last start he "only" allowed 3. We should beg Preller to at least get Logan Allen back as compensation for both trade heists. IM SHOCKED you are in hear b**** about the trade. SHOCKED. Im sure you were complaining about porcello last season and how he was a Bumb right?
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jul 20, 2016 20:03:31 GMT -5
He looked good through 3 innings. He left with a lead. We have 2+ years left. He's on cheap arbitration money. I'm remaining real positive.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 20, 2016 20:04:34 GMT -5
Did the Red Sox Really Overpay for Drew Pomeranz? by Dave Cameron - July 19, 2016 www.fangraphs.com/blogs/did-the-red-sox-really-overpay-for-drew-pomeranz/depends on assumptions some of you will question, but: "To me, this looks like the Red Sox and Padres identified the prospect in Boston’s system that was worth something very close to what Pomeranz is worth, and settled on a reasonable swap that makes sense for both sides. This one doesn’t look like Dombrowski undervaluing prospects to me; Espinoza is fun to dream on, but when factoring his risks in, he’s probably not as valuable as his “#15 ovearll prospect” status makes him sound. He’s a good get for the Padres, who should be betting on upside, but this is the kind of prospect that the Red Sox could afford to move. And for Pomeranz, this looks like the right return for both sides." Well...4 "tremendous innings" way to go Dave! This guy is worse than Buchholz. At least in his last start he "only" allowed 3. We should beg Preller to at least get Logan Allen back as compensation for both trade heists. I say this as someone who doesn't like DDo: Please stop.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 20, 2016 20:15:11 GMT -5
This is not the gameday thread, and we're past the point where it effectively served as the gameday thread for the trade. As such, it will be more heavily moderated going forward. Hyperbolic overreaction, trolling, etc. will be moved to the gameday thread or deleted going forward. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jul 20, 2016 20:32:21 GMT -5
This is not the gameday thread, and we're past the point where it effectively served as the gameday thread for the trade. As such, it will be more heavily moderated going forward. Hyperbolic overreaction, trolling, etc. will be moved to the gameday thread or deleted going forward. Thanks. No, thank you!
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 20, 2016 23:15:33 GMT -5
“@brianmacp: Pomeranz: ”I was a little off with my rhythm and timing tonight. My fastball kept shooting back over the plate.“”
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 20, 2016 23:17:53 GMT -5
“@jmastrodonato: Drew Pomeranz: ”I just felt a little off … I’m not used to having those long-run innings. This team is amazing.“”
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 21, 2016 0:45:57 GMT -5
First of all, I have no idea who is going to win this trade. No one does, and probably we won't know for a decade.
Second, I don't think the Red Sox got "fleeced". Frankly, when you look closely at the actual market for prospects, I think Pomeranz is probably a strong return.
Nonetheless I hate this trade.
First of all, I think that over the last year the Red Sox have invested way too much of their future for way too little improvement of their present. To date, the Red Sox' two and now three expensive acquisitions have added only 2 WAR (through 100 games). Tonight's game notwithstanding -- one game means nothing -- with Kimbrel injured and only sixty games left, these acquisitions will be hard pressed to achieve 6 WAR. Even recognizing that these players will contribute after this year, it is hard to see how they can possibly approach a strong return for the quarter of a billion dollars in added payroll committed and the two elite and two good prospects traded. The word that best describes Red Sox management over the last year is profligate.
For me, for all the things this team does well, they have a real sustainability problem. They haven't won back to back league/division titles in a century, and they haven't won 100 games in 70 years (this latter is meaningful because a team normally needs at least 90 to 95 wins to win a division, and given human variability, it would be hard to consistently have enough talent to win 95 games without occasionally winning 100 games). Over the last 14 years the Red Sox have made the playoffs seven times and won two division titles -- solid numbers to be sure, but in five team divisions with wild cards, their resources and their success at acquiring and developing amateur talent, the results are frankly less than they should be.
Yes they have won 3 championships, but that has more to do with going 45-27 in the postseason (and a staggering 45-21 if we ignore 2005 and 2009) than anything the FO has done.
I believe that as a result of the Red Sox propensity for trading prospects to address short-term problems, the Red Sox are giving up, on average, five wins a season. When you look at the return on Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez, Justin Masterson, Josh Reddick and Anthony Rizzo, it adds up to about five WAR a year for a decade (when salary is also considered).
Teams almost never have as many prospects as they need let alone more. In the end, I think the effect of this year's moves will be another lost opportunity to build a sustainable division winner.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 21, 2016 1:12:48 GMT -5
Teams almost never have as many prospects pitchers as they need let alone more. In the end, I think the effect of this year's moves will be another lost the first real opportunity to build a sustainable division winner. FIFY.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 21, 2016 8:13:35 GMT -5
I hated this trade.
I think a point a lot of people are missing on just how much of an over pay this deal way. The Padres had Pomeranz for cheap dollars for two more years after this year. They didn't even bother waiting until this trade deadline to try and maximize his value in a bidding war. It's like the Padres heard, "Espinoza" and immediately just said, "deal".
You mean to tell me that Devers and, say, Kopech couldn't get you Pomeranz? (Devers I would call an over pay as well, but he's more redundant than Espinonza).
With that said, I do LIKE Pomeranz, but I worry that he's more like Rubby De La Rosa than Corey Kluber.
I admit that I really can't find a guy who came onto the scene like Pomeranz has and then fizzled. Pitchers like Fausto Carmona*, Joe Kelly, and Clay Buchholz never had good k rates when they were at their best. Rubby has similar age, k and BB numbers, but never the anywhere close to the success Pomeranz is having. Any example would be appreciated.
*Roberto Hernández
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2016 8:27:32 GMT -5
I hated this trade. I think a point a lot of people are missing on just how much of an over pay this deal way. The Padres had Pomeranz for cheap dollars for two more years after this year. They didn't even bother waiting until this trade deadline to try and maximize his value in a bidding war. It's like the Padres heard, "Espinoza" and immediately just said, "deal". You mean to tell me that Devers and, say, Kopech couldn't get you Pomeranz? (Devers I would call an over pay as well, but he's more redundant than Espinonza). With that said, I do LIKE Pomeranz, but I worry that he's more like Rubby De La Rosa than Corey Kluber. I admit that I really can't find a guy who came onto the scene like Pomeranz has and then fizzled. Pitchers like Fausto Carmona*, Joe Kelly, and Clay Buchholz never had good k rates when they were at their best. Rubby has similar age, k and BB numbers, but never the anywhere close to the success Pomeranz is having. Any example would be appreciated. *Roberto Hernández Devers and Kopech is giving up more than just Espinoza.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 21, 2016 11:02:22 GMT -5
First of all, I have no idea who is going to win this trade. No one does, and probably we won't know for a decade. Second, I don't think the Red Sox got "fleeced". Frankly, when you look closely at the actual market for prospects, I think Pomeranz is probably a strong return. Nonetheless I hate this trade. First of all, I think that over the last year the Red Sox have invested way too much of their future for way too little improvement of their present. To date, the Red Sox' two and now three expensive acquisitions have added only 2 WAR (through 100 games). Tonight's game notwithstanding -- one game means nothing -- with Kimbrel injured and only sixty games left, these acquisitions will be hard pressed to achieve 6 WAR. Even recognizing that these players will contribute after this year, it is hard to see how they can possibly approach a strong return for the quarter of a billion dollars in added payroll committed and the two elite and two good prospects traded. The word that best describes Red Sox management over the last year is profligate. For me, for all the things this team does well, they have a real sustainability problem. They haven't won back to back league/division titles in a century, and they haven't won 100 games in 70 years (this latter is meaningful because a team normally needs at least 90 to 95 wins to win a division, and given human variability, it would be hard to consistently have enough talent to win 95 games without occasionally winning 100 games). Over the last 14 years the Red Sox have made the playoffs seven times and won two division titles -- solid numbers to be sure, but in five team divisions with wild cards, their resources and their success at acquiring and developing amateur talent, the results are frankly less than they should be. Yes they have won 3 championships, but that has more to do with going 45-27 in the postseason (and a staggering 45-21 if we ignore 2005 and 2009) than anything the FO has done. I believe that as a result of the Red Sox propensity for trading prospects to address short-term problems, the Red Sox are giving up, on average, five wins a season. When you look at the return on Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez, Justin Masterson, Josh Reddick and Anthony Rizzo, it adds up to about five WAR a year for a decade (when salary is also considered). Teams almost never have as many prospects as they need let alone more. In the end, I think the effect of this year's moves will be another lost opportunity to build a sustainable division winner. Why don't you just say what you really think? You think all trades involving prospects are bad. The problem is trades are a huge part of baseball. The trades involving Ramirez, Sanchez, and Rizzo lead to 2 titles, so I find it funny you bring up those prospects when talking about how trades hurt teams long term. You know what has really hurt Sox lately? Bad free agent signings. Things like not signing Lester and then signing Sandoval. Or how about the Lackey trade, which was just horrible.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jul 21, 2016 11:11:52 GMT -5
How exactly did the Rizzo/Gonzalez trade lead to a title? You mean for the Cubs?
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Jul 21, 2016 11:14:17 GMT -5
How exactly did the Rizzo/Gonzalez trade lead to a title? You mean for the Cubs? Obviously, if we trade a prospect in any years prior to a World Series win, even if the returned player wasn't on the team (Gonzo in '13), that trade won us the Series.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 21, 2016 11:14:28 GMT -5
Gonzalez's contract helped move Crawford and Beckett, and the resultant salary space those moves opened allowed Cherington to sign the free agents that resulted in a 2013 World Series victory.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 21, 2016 11:15:26 GMT -5
You mean to tell me that Devers and, say, Kopech couldn't get you Pomeranz? (Devers I would call an over pay as well, but he's more redundant than Espinonza). Devers and Kopech is giving up more than just Espinoza. The sudden emergence of Salem's Kopech as the most powerful starter, ever, has gotten more attention. But Devers may also be emerging from Salem as the most powerful hitter in a generation, and at only 19 -- 10 doubles, four triples, one homer in 17 games (70 at-bats) during July. A 21/70 (or .300) ISO is other-worldly. These two really test DDo's reputation for not trading away superstars. Let's see what he does.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Jul 21, 2016 11:19:12 GMT -5
Devers and Kopech is giving up more than just Espinoza. The sudden emergence of Salem's Kopech as the most powerful starter, ever, has gotten more attention. But Devers may also be emerging from Salem as the most powerful hitter in a generation, and at only 19 -- 10 doubles, four triples, one homer in 17 games (70 at-bats) during July. A 21/70 (or .300 ISO) is other-worldly. These two really test DDo's reputation for not trading away superstars. Let's see what he does. I'm up to calling those two potential superstars as well, but Moncada and Benintendi certainly qualify for that ceiling too, I'd think. Benny maybe slightly less so than Yoan. But maybe Dombrowski has a completely hands-off approach to those two since they're closer, so they don't really apply... hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 21, 2016 11:31:09 GMT -5
I hated this trade. I think a point a lot of people are missing on just how much of an over pay this deal way. The Padres had Pomeranz for cheap dollars for two more years after this year. They didn't even bother waiting until this trade deadline to try and maximize his value in a bidding war. It's like the Padres heard, "Espinoza" and immediately just said, "deal". You mean to tell me that Devers and, say, Kopech couldn't get you Pomeranz? (Devers I would call an over pay as well, but he's more redundant than Espinonza). With that said, I do LIKE Pomeranz, but I worry that he's more like Rubby De La Rosa than Corey Kluber. I admit that I really can't find a guy who came onto the scene like Pomeranz has and then fizzled. Pitchers like Fausto Carmona*, Joe Kelly, and Clay Buchholz never had good k rates when they were at their best. Rubby has similar age, k and BB numbers, but never the anywhere close to the success Pomeranz is having. Any example would be appreciated. *Roberto Hernández Devers and Kopech is giving up more than just Espinoza. I disagree, to an extent. Kopech has some nice potential, but when he's throwing 105 MPH in single A he's going to rack up the strike out numbers. He won't truly be tested until he hits AA. That is, if he doesn't continue to take stimulants or break his hand on teammates faces. I understand what he can be as a starter, but I see him emerging as a high-leverage reliever. Perhaps I'm wrong. Devers certainly has power and can drive the ball. Even if you wanted to call Devers equal to, or even slightly better than, prospect to Espinoza (which would certainly make Kopech + Devers an over-pay if we did that) there are plenty of young bats on the ML team and two more highly regarded bats in front of him in AA. The drop off from Espinoza to Kopech is pretty significant and from Kopech to the next guy is a huge drop off as well. Granted, they just drafted and signed Groome, but until he throws 1 pitch as a pro I'm not going to really consider him as anything. My point is, he didn't have to give up Espinoza, Moncada or Benintendi to get Pomeranz. They jumped at the opportunity because they felt this was going to be the best offer they were going to get.
|
|
|
Post by cto94 on Jul 21, 2016 11:41:20 GMT -5
Well realistically he's probably done dealing for the moment, and I'd be surprised, given the nature of the acquisitions he's made, if there were major trades coming in the offseason I'd be surprised. I think he's decided to hold on to Moncada and Benintendi at least, and I'd imagine that, having dealt Espinoza, he's planning on holding on to the big arms that remain in the system. Obviously that's conjecture, but I have a hard time seeing who/what we'd deal our remaining high end prospects for- we now have 5 starters that should be at least average signed for next year, the only significant guy in our lineup we're losing is Ortiz, and I suspect if we go for a high profile replacement, it would be in the free agent market as opposed to via trade. I think it's easy to get caught up in thinking "Dombrowski dealt all these potential future stars for a closer and a pitcher that has had half a good season as a major league starter," but he's always done an excellent job on figuring out when to sell prospects, and often when to buy talent as well. I also have to say that no matter what you might think of these deals, compared to the approach of screwing up the Lester negotiations, eventually effectively replacing him with Porcello, getting almost nothing for Lackey, and throwing $200m at Hanley and Sandoval, Dombrowski is a breath of fresh air. He aggressively fills needs, and he may pay high prices at times, but I'll trust his judgment until it's proven wrong, because he's got a much better track record on player evaluation/trades than I do On the bolded, I do think you are conjecturing - I don't see how you can have a strong certainty that DD will now hold on to all the remaining assets. Short term, yeah, I don't really expect somebody like Moncada or Kopech to be moved now. That's unlikely. But in the offseason? My own conjecture is that if this team doesn't make the playoffs, gets eliminated in the one playoff game, is out in the first round, or anything like that, oh boy. Then I'd certainly expect that given the weak FA market, some additional prospect assets will be out the door to satisfy the win-now mandate. To me, the Red Sox now that type of franchise. I'm not even blaming DD; he is really just the perfect GM for what the ownership and the fans want. Can't blame people for being sick and tired of finishing last. Just not sure about the approach the Sox are taking to fix that, but we'll have to see. He might not hold on to all of them, but specific to Moncada and Benintendi, I'd be pretty surprised if they were moved for anything less than a clear cut superstar. If this is all coming down from ownership, or at least the philosophy, it would be quite surprising if they decided to deal the guy they put $63m into signing, especially when that guy has turned into a consensus top-3 prospect in all of baseball. With Benintendi, he essentially satisfies the "win now" mandate. When we get into the Kopech/Devers kind of range, it's obviously more likely that one or both would be moved, but the problem I see with that is, who are we moving them for? We now have 5 solid or better big league starting pitchers under contract for next year. We have Pedroia under contract long term, Bogaerts, Betts and Bradley still in arbitration years at worst, Swihart and Vazquez to catch for the future, and I can't see those guys being moved for bullpen arms, especially with Kimbrel already in the fold at a somewhat exorbitant prospect cost. What's left? Benintendi is likely our starting left fielder by the start of next season at his current pace, and Moncada would probably be looking at a similar arrival time if it weren't for the position he plays, and if he is in fact ticketed for 3B, you don't even need to acquire a DH to replace Ortiz- you just shift Hanley to DH, Shaw to 1B, and you're set. Even with an early playoff exit, you'd actually need to move some quality MLB players to create space for any upgrade that came outside the bullpen, and I have a good amount of confidence that Dombrowski is aware that the value of any of Kopech, Moncada, Devers or Benintendi is higher than that of a reliever (though the Kimbrel trade could be seen as worrying from that standpoint, it would be surprising if we doubled down and dealt more highly rated prospects for another reliever, and also are dealing from less of a strength in prospects at this stage, something that must have factored into the decision to pay that price for Kimbrel)
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 21, 2016 11:42:13 GMT -5
On the upside, Joe Kelly buzz-sawing his way through the 8th inning in AAA. Kelly, Kimbrel and Kopech might be the Special K's.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Jul 21, 2016 11:48:46 GMT -5
what's a better haul, a team's 3rd best prospect or their 4th and 5th together? Unless there's a HUGE talent drop-off after 3, 90% of the time, you'd rather give up the best of those players rather than multiple slightly less talented ones.
|
|
|
Post by jimedsright on Jul 21, 2016 11:49:08 GMT -5
Devers and Kopech is giving up more than just Espinoza. I disagree, to an extent. Kopech has some nice potential, but when he's throwing 105 MPH in single A he's going to rack up the strike out numbers. He won't truly be tested until he hits AA. That is, if he doesn't continue to take stimulants or break his hand on teammates faces. I understand what he can be as a starter, but I see him emerging as a high-leverage reliever. Perhaps I'm wrong. Devers certainly has power and can drive the ball. Even if you wanted to call Devers equal to, or even slightly better than, prospect to Espinoza (which would certainly make Kopech + Devers an over-pay if we did that) there are plenty of young bats on the ML team and two more highly regarded bats in front of him in AA. The drop off from Espinoza to Kopech is pretty significant and from Kopech to the next guy is a huge drop off as well. Granted, they just drafted and signed Groome, but until he throws 1 pitch as a pro I'm not going to really consider him as anything. My point is, he didn't have to give up Espinoza, Moncada or Benintendi to get Pomeranz. They jumped at the opportunity because they felt this was going to be the best offer they were going to get.
|
|
|
Post by jimedsright on Jul 21, 2016 12:06:22 GMT -5
Please quantify how the drop-off from Espinoza to Kopech is "pretty significant." Very debatable if you consider all factors, not the least of which is that Kopech is already at High A and only 20. There's a "now" bias involved among other things. Espinoza has, and will continue to have, considerable risk as a prospect with his frame and his still-very long road to the majors. Had Pedro Martinez never come along in these parts, we'd all be MUCH more wary of anointing Espinoza as a king's ransom here...
|
|
|
Post by welovewally on Jul 21, 2016 12:48:11 GMT -5
DD got beat bad on this deal.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 21, 2016 12:54:12 GMT -5
Please quantify how the drop-off from Espinoza to Kopech is "pretty significant." Very debatable if you consider all factors, not the least of which is that Kopech is already at High A and only 20. There's a "now" bias involved among other things. Espinoza has, and will continue to have, considerable risk as a prospect with his frame and his still-very long road to the majors. Had Pedro Martinez never come along in these parts, we'd all be MUCH more wary of anointing Espinoza as a king's ransom here... Espinoza has the upside to be an ACE,Kopech has the ability to be a 3. Espinoza was the 15 rated prospect in all of baseball. I don't think Kopech made the top 100 (I really don't know). With an over powering fastball and good slider we won't be able to really evaluate him until AA. Of course Espinoza could never make it to the majors, but as it stands now, Espinoza and Kopech are world's apart.
|
|
|