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 bosox81 on Jul 22, 2016 9:05:05 GMT -5
I mean, you seem to know enough about Vogelbach to have an opinion and you're suggesting that you'd rather trade for Miller than for Montgomery. It has been speculated that the Yanks are asking for Schwarber if the Cubs want Miller. I don't think you need to know enough about the Cubs to have an opinion on this one. As for your second point, I think the more comparable trade to a potential Miller-Schwarber swap would be the Kimbrel trade rather than the Pomeranz trade, which is the one I have a bigger issue with. But that conversation belongs to a different thread. When did I ever suggest that I'd rather trade for Miller? You keep bringing up Miller I never once even brought up his name. I did some research on Vogelbach after trade and was shocked at how good his bat was. I did look at Cubs bullpen stats and I don't see a terrible pen like you said, but sometimes stats can be misleading so I assume you know what your talking about. My point was if the pen is really that bad you should be looking at getting more established Vets. Somehow you think that means Miller, but there are a ton of other guys out there that fit that profile. For example Chapman who is a rental should cost a lot less than Miller. As for Miller for Schwarber, I would only do it if you felt Miller was missing piece to winning title. Miller is about elite an reliever as there is in game right now, on pace for like a 3-3.5 war season and under control for 2 and 1/3 more seasons. He could give you about 8 Wars and a draft pick. I really disagree that anyone can give a good opinion on a trade like this. You really need to know a lot about Cubs team to make that call. I would also say that just because that's what Yankees ask for at first doesn't mean that's what it would really take. Cubs have a really good system and I'm sure they could put together a package not including Schwarber that could get them Miller. My original comment you were responding to was a comparison between trading for Montgomery vs trading for Miller (since here in the Chicago area everyone keeps bringing up that name and Theo himself brought up that name). So was it unreasonable for me to expect that even if you did not mention Miller I would think there was a mutual understanding that by "proven closer" we meant Miller? The second point is where you and I differ in opinions significantly. See, even if I "felt" Miller was the missing piece to winning a title, I would not give up Schwarber for Miller. Mainly, because I'm in the camp that the postseason is a big crapshoot (even if not entirely) and it's better to have several good chances to win it all than to have one great chance. And yes, Arrieta being so good right now and only under control for one more year I can see why some people around here think their window is closing. Sorry to everyone else that we've gone so off-topic here.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 22, 2016 9:53:42 GMT -5
When you argue the merits of a trade, I think you have to make the subtle distinction between 'was the trade worth it' and 'was it a good trade'? The Beckett trade was worth it based on one championship and that's a discussion-ender right there for most people. Was it a good trade? That's more debatable. I mean, IF, say Pablo Sandoval goes Aaron Boone and hits a walk-off HR in game 7 of the WS in 2018, would you say that was a good FA signing? I think most people would argue it still wasn't. And I don't mean to compare a walk-off HR with Beckett's 2007 postseason performance, but you get my point. For that trade answer to both is clearly yes. Wars was 40 to 33, we got Vets to help us win now and won title. As for your Sandoval example that would be yes to worth it and no to good signing unless he comes back next year and starts being a good player. What if the Red Sox won the WS while Papi was playing shortstop? Good decision to play him there since they won? Yes I know it's a ridiculous hypothetical but it's an extreme example of a post hoc fallacy. A occured, then B occurred, therefore A caused B. Meanwhile B could have occurred with so many different possible A's that happened.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 22, 2016 10:58:31 GMT -5
When did I ever suggest that I'd rather trade for Miller? You keep bringing up Miller I never once even brought up his name. I did some research on Vogelbach after trade and was shocked at how good his bat was. I did look at Cubs bullpen stats and I don't see a terrible pen like you said, but sometimes stats can be misleading so I assume you know what your talking about. My point was if the pen is really that bad you should be looking at getting more established Vets. Somehow you think that means Miller, but there are a ton of other guys out there that fit that profile. For example Chapman who is a rental should cost a lot less than Miller. As for Miller for Schwarber, I would only do it if you felt Miller was missing piece to winning title. Miller is about elite an reliever as there is in game right now, on pace for like a 3-3.5 war season and under control for 2 and 1/3 more seasons. He could give you about 8 Wars and a draft pick. I really disagree that anyone can give a good opinion on a trade like this. You really need to know a lot about Cubs team to make that call. I would also say that just because that's what Yankees ask for at first doesn't mean that's what it would really take. Cubs have a really good system and I'm sure they could put together a package not including Schwarber that could get them Miller. My original comment you were responding to was a comparison between trading for Montgomery vs trading for Miller (since here in the Chicago area everyone keeps bringing up that name and Theo himself brought up that name). So was it unreasonable for me to expect that even if you did not mention Miller I would think there was a mutual understanding that by "proven closer" we meant Miller? The second point is where you and I differ in opinions significantly. See, even if I "felt" Miller was the missing piece to winning a title, I would not give up Schwarber for Miller. Mainly, because I'm in the camp that the postseason is a big crapshoot (even if not entirely) and it's better to have several good chances to win it all than to have one great chance. And yes, Arrieta being so good right now and only under control for one more year I can see why some people around here think their window is closing. Sorry to everyone else that we've gone so off-topic here. In your original post you said Theo could have gone after proven closer or something of that ilk. So no I don't think it's fair to just assume you were talking about Miller. Miller could help give you three good chances at title. While Cubs have a lot of talent your Ace is going to be a free agent in a year, Lester is getting older and Lackey is old. This could easily be your best chance at title. I really hate the attitude of not wanting to go for it.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 22, 2016 11:10:35 GMT -5
For that trade answer to both is clearly yes. Wars was 40 to 33, we got Vets to help us win now and won title. As for your Sandoval example that would be yes to worth it and no to good signing unless he comes back next year and starts being a good player. What if the Red Sox won the WS while Papi was playing shortstop? Good decision to play him there since they won? Yes I know it's a ridiculous hypothetical but it's an extreme example of a post hoc fallacy. A occured, then B occurred, therefore A caused B. Meanwhile B could have occurred with so many different possible A's that happened. Do you really think that applies to Beckett trade? I feel 100% confident in saying without that trade we don't win title. I get what your saying I just don't see how it applies to this conversation. If we were talking Peavy trade you could debate that. Same thing with Pomeranz trade, if we win title yet he pitches poorly I'm not going to automatically call that a great trade. But if Pomeranz is a major part of winning title than yes that trade would automatically be a good trade no matter what Espinoza goes on to become. How the players play matters. As to your crazy Papi example, yes of course it would a good decision, they won a title.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 22, 2016 11:11:58 GMT -5
My original comment you were responding to was a comparison between trading for Montgomery vs trading for Miller (since here in the Chicago area everyone keeps bringing up that name and Theo himself brought up that name). So was it unreasonable for me to expect that even if you did not mention Miller I would think there was a mutual understanding that by "proven closer" we meant Miller? The second point is where you and I differ in opinions significantly. See, even if I "felt" Miller was the missing piece to winning a title, I would not give up Schwarber for Miller. Mainly, because I'm in the camp that the postseason is a big crapshoot (even if not entirely) and it's better to have several good chances to win it all than to have one great chance. And yes, Arrieta being so good right now and only under control for one more year I can see why some people around here think their window is closing. Sorry to everyone else that we've gone so off-topic here. In your original post you said Theo could have gone after proven closer or something of that ilk. So no I don't think it's fair to just assume you were talking about Miller. Miller could help give you three good chances at title. While Cubs have a lot of talent your Ace is going to be a free agent in a year, Lester is getting older and Lackey is old. This could easily be your best chance at title. I really hate the attitude of not wanting to go for it. Fair enough on the first point. As for the second point, Miller might give you three good chances at a title, but Schwarber gives you five better chances at a title. Of course, there is risk that Schwarber actually busts, but so is the risk with any reliever, as even some of the best ones have proved to be fungible and inconsistent. Not to mention that the potential difference in WAR between Miller and Schwarber at the end of their contracts could be as massive as 20.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 22, 2016 12:05:52 GMT -5
In your original post you said Theo could have gone after proven closer or something of that ilk. So no I don't think it's fair to just assume you were talking about Miller. Miller could help give you three good chances at title. While Cubs have a lot of talent your Ace is going to be a free agent in a year, Lester is getting older and Lackey is old. This could easily be your best chance at title. I really hate the attitude of not wanting to go for it. Fair enough on the first point. As for the second point, Miller might give you three good chances at a title, but Schwarber gives you five better chances at a title. Of course, there is risk that Schwarber actually busts, but so is the risk with any reliever, as even some of the best ones have proved to be fungible and inconsistent. Not to mention that the potential difference in WAR between Miller and Schwarber at the end of their contracts could be as massive as 20. My point was what if Schwarber becomes what you believe, but you guys don't have anywhere near the pitching you do now. Would you really have 5 better chances? The age of your pitching staff does not match up with the age of your young positional players. That's why I think the next two years might be your best shot at a title. Also Schwarber played about a half season last year and was worth 1.2 bwar. For that trade to be as massive as 20 war, Schwarber would need to become something like a 5 war a year player. While it's possible I think that's really high for a guy that was below average in the field last year. It's really hard to become a 5 war player with below average defense. There is certainly risk with any reliever, but Miller is about as good as a bet to stay dominant as there is in the game. Heck he is still getting better each year as a reliever.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 22, 2016 14:57:44 GMT -5
Fair enough on the first point. As for the second point, Miller might give you three good chances at a title, but Schwarber gives you five better chances at a title. Of course, there is risk that Schwarber actually busts, but so is the risk with any reliever, as even some of the best ones have proved to be fungible and inconsistent. Not to mention that the potential difference in WAR between Miller and Schwarber at the end of their contracts could be as massive as 20. My point was what if Schwarber becomes what you believe, but you guys don't have anywhere near the pitching you do now. Would you really have 5 better chances? The age of your pitching staff does not match up with the age of your young positional players. That's why I think the next two years might be your best shot at a title. Also Schwarber played about a half season last year and was worth 1.2 bwar. For that trade to be as massive as 20 war, Schwarber would need to become something like a 5 war a year player. While it's possible I think that's really high for a guy that was below average in the field last year. It's really hard to become a 5 war player with below average defense. There is certainly risk with any reliever, but Miller is about as good as a bet to stay dominant as there is in the game. Heck he is still getting better each year as a reliever. We're going to have to agree to disagree. Cubs are not my team and we have gone way off topic here. You're a Kimbrel-trade supporter and I'm not, so it makes sense that you would also support a Schwarber-Miller trade for the Cubs while I wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Jul 22, 2016 15:52:01 GMT -5
This is a Drew Pomeranz for Anderson Espinoza thread?
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 22, 2016 15:53:19 GMT -5
This is a Drew Pomeranz for Anderson Espinoza thread? My bad, my bad.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jul 22, 2016 18:49:40 GMT -5
I like the idea the Red Sox are going for it-- but as many have mentioned before not sure what Pomeranz is. Is he a 2? or 3? or worse? If he is anything less than a 2 - depending on the degree and his contributions and team success - the trade could be a future disaster.
However we are now picked amongst the tops in the AL. And for a reason - we're very good. As for Pomeranz, he has the ability to be a solid 2 for 2.5 years while our starting pitching staff looks solid for the same time-- and the hitting with a tweak looks more-than-solid for another 4- 5 years. I don't agree with the arguments made from those that hate the trade- I can see you may not like it- but hate it? For me, I've been sick and tired of watching lousy awful baseball 3 out of the past 4 years. We're actually a World Series threat especially if Pomeranz is a solid 2 for the next 2+ years. There is no way our future outlook looks bad. This trade enhances our hopes of a title for the next 3 years. That's a tremendously high ceiling to look forward to. More than likely, Espinoza gives us no shot to win until after 2018. Why not enjoy our team be amongst the top teams in baseball before that? This trade enhances that.
|
|
|
Post by chud on Jul 23, 2016 17:50:50 GMT -5
As a guy who doesn't post much i realize i'm very late to the game on this topic but wanted to post for a bit and just now had time (kids...job...etc...). I've read about half of the posts here and have a few thoughts:
1) It's tough for all of us to have unbiased perspective as the one thing that's brought us all together here is our love of prospects, and the philosophy of building through the farm...and that's a fun and exciting premise...especially as we get to watch the fruits of the Sox labor in the killer B's
2) But also think we need to balance that with not taking for granted the rare opportunities to "win now" which even the most opposed to this deal have to admit the Sox have a chance to win the AL with some calculated moves...we can't get lost in those rare opportunities even despite the recent 3 WS championships...those opportunities are rare indeed
3) One thing I think we all knew, prior to the trade, is that a healthy Sox offense and bullpen are world series caliber, yet the SP was at the time a big question...a healthy E-Rod, return to form by Price, and continuation of Wright's dominance would be huge, but all three are more or less question marks needing bolstering to make a true run for the World Series
4) I think it's safe to say that even w/out the trade the Sox were in the playoff hunt, but with starting pitching being the most important thing in the playoffs (like the hockey goalie / qb) any true WS run would mean bolstering the SP
5) Then, as much as i was broken hearted to lose Espinoza, and under the assumption that Pomeranz is more than a #4 starter, we have to be honest...Chance to make a true WS run if the SP is enhanced by trading a Class A SP (albeit an extremely highly rated one) straight up, is tough to pass up...again, especially in this American League, this year, with this year's Sox offense and bullpen
6) Could it come back to haunt us if; the Sox don't make/go anywhere in the playoffs, if Espinoza turns into an ace SP, if Pomeranz is a bust...sure...such is life when taking a chance to make a run...
7) The key is knowing when to take a chance and trusting the Sox leadership...I believe (despite the Sox recent championships/successes) this is a time to take a chance...I also trust in DD's experience and the experience of the entire Sox front office (honestly, does anyone believe DD traded Espinoza when every important member of the front office disagreed...that would be naive) to know who to trade and what to trade them for in the context of the market place at the time...SP's this year are expensive, yet it's a year when the AL is easily winnable...and while i hope it's not the case, who's to say Espinoza (SP in A-ball remember) doesn't get hurt, flame out, or become the next Casey Kelly/Henry Owens...no one can predict that but think we all need to understand there are going to be times that we trade good prospects for good reasons and that it could work out for the Sox or it may not...But need to seize the day, when the day is looking to be seized
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Jul 24, 2016 0:28:27 GMT -5
As a guy who doesn't post much i realize i'm very late to the game on this topic but wanted to post for a bit and just now had time (kids...job...etc...). I've read about half of the posts here and have a few thoughts: 1) It's tough for all of us to have unbiased perspective as the one thing that's brought us all together here is our love of prospects, and the philosophy of building through the farm...and that's a fun and exciting premise...especially as we get to watch the fruits of the Sox labor in the killer B's 2) But also think we need to balance that with not taking for granted the rare opportunities to "win now" which even the most opposed to this deal have to admit the Sox have a chance to win the AL with some calculated moves...we can't get lost in those rare opportunities even despite the recent 3 WS championships...those opportunities are rare indeed 3) One thing I think we all knew, prior to the trade, is that a healthy Sox offense and bullpen are world series caliber, yet the SP was at the time a big question...a healthy E-Rod, return to form by Price, and continuation of Wright's dominance would be huge, but all three are more or less question marks needing bolstering to make a true run for the World Series 4) I think it's safe to say that even w/out the trade the Sox were in the playoff hunt, but with starting pitching being the most important thing in the playoffs (like the hockey goalie / qb) any true WS run would mean bolstering the SP 5) Then, as much as i was broken hearted to lose Espinoza, and under the assumption that Pomeranz is more than a #4 starter, we have to be honest...Chance to make a true WS run if the SP is enhanced by trading a Class A SP (albeit an extremely highly rated one) straight up, is tough to pass up...again, especially in this American League, this year, with this year's Sox offense and bullpen 6) Could it come back to haunt us if; the Sox don't make/go anywhere in the playoffs, if Espinoza turns into an ace SP, if Pomeranz is a bust...sure...such is life when taking a chance to make a run... 7) The key is knowing when to take a chance and trusting the Sox leadership...I believe (despite the Sox recent championships/successes) this is a time to take a chance...I also trust in DD's experience and the experience of the entire Sox front office (honestly, does anyone believe DD traded Espinoza when every important member of the front office disagreed...that would be naive) to know who to trade and what to trade them for in the context of the market place at the time...SP's this year are expensive, yet it's a year when the AL is easily winnable...and while i hope it's not the case, who's to say Espinoza (SP in A-ball remember) doesn't get hurt, flame out, or become the next Casey Kelly/Henry Owens...no one can predict that but think we all need to understand there are going to be times that we trade good prospects for good reasons and that it could work out for the Sox or it may not...But need to seize the day, when the day is looking to be seized I agree. But I have to wonder if we woulda been better served to add devers to Espinoza and land Sale??? Assuming that that would be enough.
|
|
|
Post by theghostofjoecronin on Jul 24, 2016 4:16:48 GMT -5
As a guy who doesn't post much i realize i'm very late to the game on this topic but wanted to post for a bit and just now had time (kids...job...etc...). I've read about half of the posts here and have a few thoughts: 1) It's tough for all of us to have unbiased perspective as the one thing that's brought us all together here is our love of prospects, and the philosophy of building through the farm...and that's a fun and exciting premise...especially as we get to watch the fruits of the Sox labor in the killer B's 2) But also think we need to balance that with not taking for granted the rare opportunities to "win now" which even the most opposed to this deal have to admit the Sox have a chance to win the AL with some calculated moves...we can't get lost in those rare opportunities even despite the recent 3 WS championships...those opportunities are rare indeed 3) One thing I think we all knew, prior to the trade, is that a healthy Sox offense and bullpen are world series caliber, yet the SP was at the time a big question...a healthy E-Rod, return to form by Price, and continuation of Wright's dominance would be huge, but all three are more or less question marks needing bolstering to make a true run for the World Series 4) I think it's safe to say that even w/out the trade the Sox were in the playoff hunt, but with starting pitching being the most important thing in the playoffs (like the hockey goalie / qb) any true WS run would mean bolstering the SP 5) Then, as much as i was broken hearted to lose Espinoza, and under the assumption that Pomeranz is more than a #4 starter, we have to be honest...Chance to make a true WS run if the SP is enhanced by trading a Class A SP (albeit an extremely highly rated one) straight up, is tough to pass up...again, especially in this American League, this year, with this year's Sox offense and bullpen 6) Could it come back to haunt us if; the Sox don't make/go anywhere in the playoffs, if Espinoza turns into an ace SP, if Pomeranz is a bust...sure...such is life when taking a chance to make a run... 7) The key is knowing when to take a chance and trusting the Sox leadership...I believe (despite the Sox recent championships/successes) this is a time to take a chance...I also trust in DD's experience and the experience of the entire Sox front office (honestly, does anyone believe DD traded Espinoza when every important member of the front office disagreed...that would be naive) to know who to trade and what to trade them for in the context of the market place at the time...SP's this year are expensive, yet it's a year when the AL is easily winnable...and while i hope it's not the case, who's to say Espinoza (SP in A-ball remember) doesn't get hurt, flame out, or become the next Casey Kelly/Henry Owens...no one can predict that but think we all need to understand there are going to be times that we trade good prospects for good reasons and that it could work out for the Sox or it may not...But need to seize the day, when the day is looking to be seized I agree. But I have to wonder if we woulda been better served to add devers to Espinoza and land Sale??? Assuming that that would be enough. That would not be enough, the asking price for Sale is very high.
|
|
fenwayfaithful
Rookie
A prospect is fun to watch, but trading him for a sure thing in the Majors is never a losing deal.
Posts: 114
|
Post by fenwayfaithful on Jul 24, 2016 15:11:08 GMT -5
hopefully we see a Pomeranz gem tomorrow!!!
|
|
|
Post by Sammy on Jul 26, 2016 17:11:51 GMT -5
The very fact that people are arguing the merits of Beckett/Lowell vs. Hanley/Anibal proves that the Sox should make these type of trades when the time is right. The Marlins took on significantly more risk in that deal, but it panned out about as well as it could have for them, and we still do not regret it. Even if the Sox did not win the WS in '07, it would not be an incredibly regretful move - at least they would have made a strong, well-calculated move to go for it.
Arguing that the Sox made a bad move from a organizational philosophy standpoint (i.e., never trade potential future value for higher floor/more expensive present value) because of how Hanley and Anibal turned out is like saying you should always trade a prospect 5-pack for superstars because DDo once acquired Miguel Cabrera for Cameron Maybin, Andrew Miller's lousy years, and flotsam.
It's interesting that the Marlins were the sellers in both those trades. They probably viewed Maybin/Miller as a comparable return to Hanley/Anibal at the time. That's the inherent risk of prospects for ya.
|
|
fenwayfaithful
Rookie
A prospect is fun to watch, but trading him for a sure thing in the Majors is never a losing deal.
Posts: 114
|
Post by fenwayfaithful on Jul 28, 2016 2:46:49 GMT -5
I think we got a steal. Pomeranz for AE straight up. Great trade. I doubt we will ever regret it. I just wish we added Joe Kelly or Buchholz to the deal lol
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 28, 2016 8:06:40 GMT -5
I think we got a steal. Pomeranz for AE straight up. Great trade. I doubt we will ever regret it. I just wish we added Joe Kelly or Buchholz to the deal lol Why do you think the Red Sox got a steal? It's fine to think they do, but why? Isn't it possible Pomeranz is just so-so, and not very impactful and Espinoza blossoms into a very good pitcher down the road? Do you think Espinoza is nothing more than a lottery ticket and Pomeranz is the next Kershaw waiting to happen? Why is it a steal?
|
|
fenwayfaithful
Rookie
A prospect is fun to watch, but trading him for a sure thing in the Majors is never a losing deal.
Posts: 114
|
Post by fenwayfaithful on Jul 28, 2016 13:16:58 GMT -5
I think we got a steal. Pomeranz for AE straight up. Great trade. I doubt we will ever regret it. I just wish we added Joe Kelly or Buchholz to the deal lol Why do you think the Red Sox got a steal? It's fine to think they do, but why? Isn't it possible Pomeranz is just so-so, and not very impactful and Espinoza blossoms into a very good pitcher down the road? Do you think Espinoza is nothing more than a lottery ticket and Pomeranz is the next Kershaw waiting to happen? Why is it a steal? We gave up one prospect 3-5 years away from the big leagues who's not even having a good year for a lefty who was an all star this year. We didn't have to add anything else to this deal. 1 prospect for an all star. You don't make the all star team in your prime age as a fluke. Dude has the 4th highest spin ratio on his pitches in all of baseball. He's a stud who needed to add a pitch which he did a cutter. He's tall and has a smooth delivery. His curveball is untouchable at times and makes his fastball look like its 100mph. He's only making 1.4 million. He's proven. He can help this team now and next year. AE might be a bust he might be stud but we needed another starter so badly and we got one who was just in the all-star game heads up for our 3rd best prospect who is still in A ball.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 28, 2016 13:28:55 GMT -5
Why do you think the Red Sox got a steal? It's fine to think they do, but why? Isn't it possible Pomeranz is just so-so, and not very impactful and Espinoza blossoms into a very good pitcher down the road? Do you think Espinoza is nothing more than a lottery ticket and Pomeranz is the next Kershaw waiting to happen? Why is it a steal? We gave up one prospect 3-5 years away from the big leagues who's not even having a good year for a lefty who was an all star this year. We didn't have to add anything else to this deal. 1 prospect for an all star. You don't make the all star team in your prime age as a fluke. Dude has the 4th highest spin ratio on his pitches in all of baseball. He's a stud who needed to add a pitch which he did a cutter. He's tall and has a smooth delivery. His curveball is untouchable at times and makes his fastball look like its 100mph. He's only making 1.4 million. He's proven. He can help this team now and next year. AE might be a bust he might be stud but we needed another starter so badly and we got one who was just in the all-star game heads up for our 3rd best prospect who is still in A ball. Fair enough, although I'd add that Espinoza is only 18 years old and the youngest player in his league. I wouldn't necessarily use the all-star team as a barometer of anything. I mean Brock Holt represented the Red Sox. Decent player, but I wouldn't give up anything huge to acquire a player like him. I think Pomeranz had some decent to good years in relief, and his first half was promising, but has yet to establish himself as a 200 innings pitch workhorse. The jury is still out on that.
|
|
|
Post by theghostofjoecronin on Jul 28, 2016 15:24:45 GMT -5
We gave up one prospect 3-5 years away from the big leagues who's not even having a good year for a lefty who was an all star this year. We didn't have to add anything else to this deal. 1 prospect for an all star. You don't make the all star team in your prime age as a fluke. Dude has the 4th highest spin ratio on his pitches in all of baseball. He's a stud who needed to add a pitch which he did a cutter. He's tall and has a smooth delivery. His curveball is untouchable at times and makes his fastball look like its 100mph. He's only making 1.4 million. He's proven. He can help this team now and next year. AE might be a bust he might be stud but we needed another starter so badly and we got one who was just in the all-star game heads up for our 3rd best prospect who is still in A ball. Fair enough, although I'd add that Espinoza is only 18 years old and the youngest player in his league. I wouldn't necessarily use the all-star team as a barometer of anything. I mean Brock Holt represented the Red Sox. Decent player, but I wouldn't give up anything huge to acquire a player like him. I think Pomeranz had some decent to good years in relief, and his first half was promising, but has yet to establish himself as a 200 innings pitch workhorse. The jury is still out on that.Kind of a blessing in disguise in my eyes. Not a lot of mileage on his arm.
|
|
fenwayfaithful
Rookie
A prospect is fun to watch, but trading him for a sure thing in the Majors is never a losing deal.
Posts: 114
|
Post by fenwayfaithful on Jul 28, 2016 22:23:49 GMT -5
Fair enough, although I'd add that Espinoza is only 18 years old and the youngest player in his league. I wouldn't necessarily use the all-star team as a barometer of anything. I mean Brock Holt represented the Red Sox. Decent player, but I wouldn't give up anything huge to acquire a player like him. I think Pomeranz had some decent to good years in relief, and his first half was promising, but has yet to establish himself as a 200 innings pitch workhorse. The jury is still out on that.Kind of a blessing in disguise in my eyes. Not a lot of mileage on his arm. the guys 27 and has the arm/shoulder of a 23 year old. Since when does 514 innings in 6 years hurt someone. I think he's going to surprise all the critics. The man had the best opponent batting avg in the national league. we traded a single A player straight up. Some of you people are never satisfied.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 29, 2016 7:38:54 GMT -5
Kind of a blessing in disguise in my eyes. Not a lot of mileage on his arm. the guys 27 and has the arm/shoulder of a 23 year old. Since when does 514 innings in 6 years hurt someone. I think he's going to surprise all the critics. The man had the best opponent batting avg in the national league. we traded a single A player straight up. Some of you people are never satisfied. Playing in San Diego. One half season isn't worth the 15th best prospect in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 29, 2016 7:46:22 GMT -5
They have Pomeranz for two and a half seasons.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 29, 2016 10:56:17 GMT -5
They have Pomeranz for two and a half seasons. I'm talking performance wise. He's had a great half season, at 27. I don't think that's worth Espinoza.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jul 29, 2016 11:12:10 GMT -5
I hate to lose Neo as well. Clay forced that deal. At least we have him for a couple of prime years, and as fenwayfaithful said, his odometer is low.
|
|
|