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
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,398
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2016 10:08:43 GMT -5
I've watched all three of Pomeranz's games with the Sox, and the results have not been so hot, but I still like him and the trade.
Actually, I'd go further and say he looks better than I thought he would. I expected an 88-90 mph fastball, and he has been 91ish and as high as 94 -- and not perfectly straight. With the curve and the cutter, that plays great. Unfortunately, he has not really had all three pitches working at once yet.
Yesterday, though, I think he got screwed: look, he's got a fine pitch count, and he opens the 6th with a K. Then a walk (and most of the pitches were competitive) and the hook for KELLY. Just terrible. If Pomeranz is allowed to pitch on, maybe he gets out of that inning and finishes a respectable 6 inning (or into the 7th), 4 run game. Not great, but not terrible on a day he lacks his best stuff. They should be 2-1 in his starts.
I am happy to see Price, Porcello, and Pomeranz go out as the first 3 starters. That looks like a front of the rotation that can win a championship. It is not the weakness of the team, and hopefully it is something to build around next year, too.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 31, 2016 10:11:07 GMT -5
Are you really comparing Scott bleepin Cooper to Pomeranz, shame on you. Cooper was an all star for one reason and one reason alone, someone had to represent that awful Red Sox team at the game. Pomeranz had been among the top 2 or 3 pitchers in the NL this year and rightly deserved to be there and you know that. That comment is someone either trolling or trying to manipulate the narrative, either way it doesn't belong here. Also pointing out where he got drafted, btw ahead of Sale & Harvey, does have merit. It shows that people whose jobs depend on it and with their own respective pedigrees in baseball valued Pomeranz higher than those other prospects, Sale & Harvey. Does that make it right, no, nor does it make it wrong, the point is people who know more about the game than you or I thought highly enough of him to pick him 5th in the draft. He's 27 not 30, 31 and some players do take longer than others to put it all together. He added a pitch which has turned him into an all-star. Read the Brian Bannister piece about him comparing him highly to Rich Hill except he's 10 years younger and under control for 2 more years. Hill had less of a track record then Pomeranz yet everyone was on board with that move. It was a good move even if AE becomes an ace because of where we are as a team and how far away for MLB AE is. And all the tangibles that go along with those points that have been listed here by many others. You can think that losing AE stinks, I have no problem at all with that (I in fact agree with that), but by now most should have realized it is a move as a GM you should make. It all depends on how much you buy of what he did over the first few months of the season. He has a track record of being a good left handed reliever. Check. He had a promising first three months with the Padres. So if he is indeed an emerging ace, then the Sox did well to make the trade. If he is a guy who cannot make it past the sixth inning, then it's fair to question how good he is. So far he's been bitten by the long ball which hadn't been an issue. We know his command is spotty. Therefore high pitch counts, and fewer innings pitched, and more bullpen innings than you'd like to see. He's 27 and evolving. Fine, but how much better is his command going to get because at this point? Whether you like to admit it or not, it's a fair question. If I would have told you before the season the Sox should trade Anderson Espinoza for Drew Pomeranz, I would think you would have responded, "Are you crazy?!" Then he had three good months for the Padres, and suddenly he's a must have. Maybe you're right, and it's a move all GMs make now - as it seems like open season to really overpay for talent (unless you're Dave Stewart). I mean, people here were gagging at the quantity if not quality of what the Red Sox gave up for Kimbrel, but since then we've seen a lot of GMs give up their best prospects for talent in moves I don't think we would have seen awhile back. Like I said before I was actually ok with the Kimbrel move because the Sox give up very little that can actually come back and bite them in the butt, but Espinoza can really come back to haunt the Sox if he develops into what the scouts think he can become (and relying very heavily on a stat line for an 18 year old kid in A ball where he's the youngest in the league is a bit much - not saying he doesn't need to work on things, but at 18 he has plenty of time and talent to fix them). The one thing I see from you is this arrogance that everybody on this board should think one way or another on this AE/Pomeranz deal. I understand why people here, if they were GMs, would make this deal, but it's hardly crazy to me to imagine why some here, including myself, would not have made this deal. Just like I understand why a majority of this board would not have made the Kimbrel deal, yet I would have made it (and be aggravated that Kimbrel, young in his prime and established with a long track record) hasn't pitched like the closer I was trading for). It comes down to how do you view Pomeranz and how do you view Espinoza? I view Pomeranz as a guy who'll rarely make it into the 7th inning because his command isn't good enough to allow him to, so I see him as a #3 guy at best who had a great stretch of 3 months in SD pitching in a ballpark that's good to pitch in (and yeah, I know he pitched well on the road, too) and I question if he'll even necessarily be a solid middle of the rotation starter with the Red Sox. I don't like having that question in an acquisition when I'm trading the best pitching prospect the Red Sox have had in a long time, one that scouts believe will either front a rotation or pitch toward the top of one, especially when one of the biggest and costliest failures of the Red Sox is to develop good young pitching so they don't have to trade for it or have to spend $217 million on it. Wouldn't you agree Pomeranz looks like a 2 pitch pitcher with the fastball sitting at 90, is that enough to be a consistent Starting pitcher in the AL?
|
|
|
Post by soxhuskies on Jul 31, 2016 10:17:31 GMT -5
It all depends on how much you buy of what he did over the first few months of the season. He has a track record of being a good left handed reliever. Check. He had a promising first three months with the Padres. So if he is indeed an emerging ace, then the Sox did well to make the trade. If he is a guy who cannot make it past the sixth inning, then it's fair to question how good he is. So far he's been bitten by the long ball which hadn't been an issue. We know his command is spotty. Therefore high pitch counts, and fewer innings pitched, and more bullpen innings than you'd like to see. He's 27 and evolving. Fine, but how much better is his command going to get because at this point? Whether you like to admit it or not, it's a fair question. If I would have told you before the season the Sox should trade Anderson Espinoza for Drew Pomeranz, I would think you would have responded, "Are you crazy?!" Then he had three good months for the Padres, and suddenly he's a must have. Maybe you're right, and it's a move all GMs make now - as it seems like open season to really overpay for talent (unless you're Dave Stewart). I mean, people here were gagging at the quantity if not quality of what the Red Sox gave up for Kimbrel, but since then we've seen a lot of GMs give up their best prospects for talent in moves I don't think we would have seen awhile back. Like I said before I was actually ok with the Kimbrel move because the Sox give up very little that can actually come back and bite them in the butt, but Espinoza can really come back to haunt the Sox if he develops into what the scouts think he can become (and relying very heavily on a stat line for an 18 year old kid in A ball where he's the youngest in the league is a bit much - not saying he doesn't need to work on things, but at 18 he has plenty of time and talent to fix them). The one thing I see from you is this arrogance that everybody on this board should think one way or another on this AE/Pomeranz deal. I understand why people here, if they were GMs, would make this deal, but it's hardly crazy to me to imagine why some here, including myself, would not have made this deal. Just like I understand why a majority of this board would not have made the Kimbrel deal, yet I would have made it (and be aggravated that Kimbrel, young in his prime and established with a long track record) hasn't pitched like the closer I was trading for). It comes down to how do you view Pomeranz and how do you view Espinoza? I view Pomeranz as a guy who'll rarely make it into the 7th inning because his command isn't good enough to allow him to, so I see him as a #3 guy at best who had a great stretch of 3 months in SD pitching in a ballpark that's good to pitch in (and yeah, I know he pitched well on the road, too) and I question if he'll even necessarily be a solid middle of the rotation starter with the Red Sox. I don't like having that question in an acquisition when I'm trading the best pitching prospect the Red Sox have had in a long time, one that scouts believe will either front a rotation or pitch toward the top of one, especially when one of the biggest and costliest failures of the Red Sox is to develop good young pitching so they don't have to trade for it or have to spend $217 million on it. Wouldn't you agree Pomeranz looks like a 2 pitch pitcher with the fastball sitting at 90, is that enough to be a consistent Starting pitcher in the AL? He's a 3 pitch guy. He does lack elite velocity, true. But I'd like to see him go against the Mariners, a team which Pomeranz matches up nicely against, as well as his home start against the Yankees before admitting that he's in trouble.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,398
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2016 10:20:59 GMT -5
Wouldn't you agree Pomeranz looks like a 2 pitch pitcher with the fastball sitting at 90, is that enough to be a consistent Starting pitcher in the AL? I do not agree with that -- he has a good fastball that sits, sure, 90-91 but has been as high as 94 and appears to play up, since he has put it by some good hitters; he has a great curveball; and his cutter has looked very good at times, almost like a slider at around 86. If those three pitches are working, and if they are called in the right mix, he's fine. He does have 15 Ks in 14.1 innings with the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Jul 31, 2016 10:47:57 GMT -5
Wouldn't you agree Pomeranz looks like a 2 pitch pitcher with the fastball sitting at 90, is that enough to be a consistent Starting pitcher in the AL? I do not agree with that -- he has a good fastball that sits, sure, 90-91 but has been as high as 94 and appears to play up, since he has put it by some good hitters; he has a great curveball; and his cutter has looked very good at times, almost like a slider at around 86. If those three pitches are working, and if they are called in the right mix, he's fine. He does have 15 Ks in 14.1 innings with the Sox. Don't leave out the 18 hits, 6 walks and 4 HR's in those 14.1ip. SSS, I know. Edit: His BB rate has been close to 4 his entire career and that is going to kill him, especially at Fenway.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,398
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2016 11:05:39 GMT -5
I do not agree with that -- he has a good fastball that sits, sure, 90-91 but has been as high as 94 and appears to play up, since he has put it by some good hitters; he has a great curveball; and his cutter has looked very good at times, almost like a slider at around 86. If those three pitches are working, and if they are called in the right mix, he's fine. He does have 15 Ks in 14.1 innings with the Sox. Don't leave out the 18 hits, 6 walks and 4 HR's in those 14.1ip. SSS, I know. Edit: His BB rate has been close to 4 his entire career and that is going to kill him, especially at Fenway. I didn't intend to cherry pick. But even in SSS, 8 of those hits and 2 of the HRs came in his first start. And further: 6 of the hits and both homers came in the top of the 4th (2 hits were infield hits, too). It seems way early to draw conclusions from these numbers. The control is a bit of a concern -- less, to me, for the baserunners (though that is obviously not inconsequential) but because of the pitch counts. He looks like a 6 inning pitcher, which puts a bit more pressure on Price and Porcello to go deep. But: the point is that he is not a 3 pitch pitcher, and his stuff looks good enough to be a very solid #3. Given that the Sox should have a 1 and 2 in Price and Porcello (at their cost, certainly), that is what they needed to have a chance this year and next.
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Jul 31, 2016 11:53:55 GMT -5
In honor of Dennis Green, he is who we thought he was.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2016 12:34:03 GMT -5
This trade is looking shaky ain't it ? I'll let you know in 2.5 years, or more than 3 starts.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jul 31, 2016 12:52:24 GMT -5
I don't like his latest postgame though I could have only caught a blip. When Price pitches badly he acknowledges his shortcomings. Pomeranz acknowledged his in his 1st start = but this one too. You let up 4 runs in 5 innings then you put yourself at risk to get pulled.
I do believe Farrell is an awful manager but his yanking of Pomeranz was coach-discretion-justified. Pomeranz just has to pitch better. He has the 3 pitch requirement for a starter. He has to start acting like a 3 pitch starter that is a 2/3 rather than make excuses or mention he should stay in while he is allowing 4 runs over 5 innings. If he doesn't understand this concept that 4 runs in 5 innings doesn't guarantee you much leeway going into the 6th, he's going to have a short stay in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2016 12:57:32 GMT -5
I don't like his latest postgame though I could have only caught a blip. When Price pitches badly he acknowledges his shortcomings. Pomeranz acknowledged his in his 1st start = but this one too. You let up 4 runs in 5 innings then you put yourself at risk to get pulled. I do believe Farrell is an awful manager but his yanking of Pomeranz was coach-discretion-justified. Pomeranz just has to pitch better. He has the 3 pitch requirement for a starter. He has to start acting like a 3 pitch starter that is a 2/3 rather than make excuses or mention he should stay in while he is allowing 4 runs over 5 innings. If he doesn't understand this concept that 4 runs in 5 innings doesn't guarantee you much leeway going into the 6th, he's going to have a short stay in Boston. I don't expect him to only strand 45.5% of baserunners in most starts. He didn't pitch that badly last night. The Angels were the opposite of the Red Sox with being opportunistic.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jul 31, 2016 13:25:56 GMT -5
For a team like the Cubs it makes sense. I never mentioned anything about success rate. Miller improves your chance, fixes their biggest issue with one if not best reliever in game. In addition to Chapman? I mean, Miller over Chapman makes sense because he's got a couple extra years. But there's a point of diminishing returns. I guess I'd agree with you in certain circumstances, and the Cubs are probably one. A great team with basically no holes but the one they're trying to fill makes more sense than a solid but flawed team (like the Sox) giving up big pieces for a better chance at contending. In that instance (an outstanding team with a great young core and a loaded minor league system), "going for it" makes more sense to me. That's kind of why I'd wished the Sox had followed the '15 Cubs blueprint and stood pat. I think they were one year (and one offseason) from getting there. But, again, at some point it's just time to trust the guys you have. Trade away too much talent, and if something catastrophic happens, like a major injury, it's a killer for the next season, too. Do you not see the flaw in your own logic. The trade was not strictly about this year, it was about this season and the next 2. You mention we are likely a year away from being in the right position to go for it. If we had not landed Pomeranz would we not be in the same exact position next year? Or are you missing that you are stating that there would have still been holes in the team that had to be addressed. You wanted to wait to see if something better came along? And if it did not? What then? Now we wasted 2 year of the prime year of the killer B's. Right now the team is not playing well but the only hole I see is the bullpen (JF too?) but then again losing your closer (Kimbrell) and both set-up men (Smith & Uehara) all at the same time can cause that to happen, funny how that works. Even if this year is a long shot due to injuries, etc. we should be there when the dance starts, more importantly we should be there for the next 2 as well. Nearly the entire team will be back with only a few notable exceptions, Ortiz, Ziegler, Uehara and Tazawa. And I'd be surprised if the Sox do not resign at least 2 of the relievers listed.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Jul 31, 2016 13:44:25 GMT -5
This trade is looking shaky ain't it ? I'll let you know in 2.5 years, or more than 3 starts. Let me know when he develops a third pitch? The trade was worth the risk only because AE is years away. After yesterday, you can only wonder if this move was the right one. Ill quote my relatives divorce lawyer in 98, " it don't look good".
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2016 13:49:47 GMT -5
I'll let you know in 2.5 years, or more than 3 starts. Let me know when he develops a third pitch? The trade was worth the risk only because AE is years away. After yesterday, you can only wonder if this move was the right one. Ill quote my relatives divorce lawyer in 98, " it don't look good". Yesterday does absolutely nothing to prove whether the trade was good or not, because you don't evaluate trades based on one game or three games. Why not just limit it to one pitch? He has 3 pitches. Adding the cutter this year is what made him an All-Star.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 31, 2016 13:50:20 GMT -5
This trade is looking shaky ain't it ? I'll let you know in 2.5 years, or more than 3 starts. Why wait so long? Part of this argument is they desperately needed him for THIS year. He's failed spectacularly thus far. I'm willing to wager that next season is going to be rough as well as he's blowing by his career high in IP.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2016 13:53:14 GMT -5
I'll let you know in 2.5 years, or more than 3 starts. Why wait so long? Because people who have watched baseball for more than 5 minutes understand adjustment periods when moving to a new team, a new city, with new teammates, coaches and catchers along with the wild range of outcomes over 3 games for every pitcher who has ever pitched. Clayton Kershaw could have pitched with the same exact results over the last 3 games. It just happens because that's what baseball is like.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 31, 2016 13:56:17 GMT -5
Folks down on Drew should remember, he's taking starts from Clay and Kelly, both below replacement level this year. He'll also be here next year.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,398
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2016 14:32:53 GMT -5
I'll let you know in 2.5 years, or more than 3 starts. Why wait so long? Part of this argument is they desperately needed him for THIS year. He's failed spectacularly thus far. That's not entirely true. He sucked in his first game, was very good in the second, and was fair and unlucky yesterday. The Sox should be 2-1 in his starts. If they hit with bases loaded yesterday, it's a different game.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 31, 2016 14:34:06 GMT -5
Because people who have watched baseball for more than 5 minutes understand adjustment periods when moving to a new team, a new city, with new teammates, coaches and catchers along with the wild range of outcomes over 3 games for every pitcher who has ever pitched. Clayton Kershaw could have pitched with the same exact results over the last 3 games. It just happens because that's what baseball is like. So, it's perfectly reasonable to make the argument they needed the pitching this year, but when he falters this year,"well, we have him for 2 more seasons after this anyways so you can't evaluate". No, you can evaluate. He has been abysmal in the 3 starts (well 2 bad, one decent) and there isn't that many more opportunities to show his value for this very season. If he doesn't provide value then they could have just held onto Espinoza and flipped him in the off season in a package for Sale or Hernandez or maybe bought Pomeranz on lower value if he struggles the rest of the way. Plus, I'm very worried about Pomeraz second season in Boston because blowing by your career high in IP is a very real thing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2016 15:03:30 GMT -5
Because people who have watched baseball for more than 5 minutes understand adjustment periods when moving to a new team, a new city, with new teammates, coaches and catchers along with the wild range of outcomes over 3 games for every pitcher who has ever pitched. Clayton Kershaw could have pitched with the same exact results over the last 3 games. It just happens because that's what baseball is like. So, it's perfectly reasonable to make the argument they needed the pitching this year, but when he falters this year,"well, we have him for 2 more seasons after this anyways so you can't evaluate". No, you can evaluate. He has been abysmal in the 3 starts (well 2 bad, one decent) and there isn't that many more opportunities to show his value for this very season. If he doesn't provide value then they could have just held onto Espinoza and flipped him in the off season in a package for Sale or Hernandez or maybe bought Pomeranz on lower value if he struggles the rest of the way. Plus, I'm very worried about Pomeraz second season in Boston because blowing by your career high in IP is a very real thing. Even if he's not great this year, he's still here for two more years. They traded for all of that service time, not just this year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 31, 2016 15:32:07 GMT -5
First off, being 18 and in A ball is a rarity in itself. Youngest player in the league. Much better FIP/xFIP (the real indicators of how he's pitched) than ERA. For an "All-Star" (Scott Cooper was one, too), who's had a couple of OK seasons in relief and a good half-season as a starter. "Former first-round pick?" That's as important as "highest bonus given to a pitcher in his IFA class." And he's only got two years of control after this one. Not a terrible trade, but not an especially great one, either. I don't like it, but they've made worse. Are you really comparing Scott bleepin Cooper to Pomeranz, shame on you. Cooper was an all star for one reason and one reason alone, someone had to represent that awful Red Sox team at the game. Pomeranz had been among the top 2 or 3 pitchers in the NL this year and rightly deserved to be there and you know that. That comment is someone either trolling or trying to manipulate the narrative, either way it doesn't belong here. Also pointing out where he got drafted, btw ahead of Sale & Harvey, does have merit. It shows that people whose jobs depend on it and with their own respective pedigrees in baseball valued Pomeranz higher than those other prospects, Sale & Harvey. Does that make it right, no, nor does it make it wrong, the point is people who know more about the game than you or I thought highly enough of him to pick him 5th in the draft. He's 27 not 30, 31 and some players do take longer than others to put it all together. He added a pitch which has turned him into an all-star. Read the Brian Bannister piece about him comparing him highly to Rich Hill except he's 10 years younger and under control for 2 more years. Hill had less of a track record then Pomeranz yet everyone was on board with that move. It was a good move even if AE becomes an ace because of where we are as a team and how far away for MLB AE is. And all the tangibles that go along with those points that have been listed here by many others. You can think that losing AE stinks, I have no problem at all with that (I in fact agree with that), but by now most should have realized it is a move as a GM you should make. Yes, Pomeranz made it on merit. Once. That's a lot closer to Cooper than it is to being a perennially superior player. "Shame on you?" Give me a break. There's also an ocean of difference between "should" and "could." Just because you say a GM "should," doesn't make it so. The idea that there's only one reasonable approach to that situation is juvenile.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jul 31, 2016 17:24:20 GMT -5
Are you really comparing Scott bleepin Cooper to Pomeranz, shame on you. Cooper was an all star for one reason and one reason alone, someone had to represent that awful Red Sox team at the game. Pomeranz had been among the top 2 or 3 pitchers in the NL this year and rightly deserved to be there and you know that. That comment is someone either trolling or trying to manipulate the narrative, either way it doesn't belong here. Also pointing out where he got drafted, btw ahead of Sale & Harvey, does have merit. It shows that people whose jobs depend on it and with their own respective pedigrees in baseball valued Pomeranz higher than those other prospects, Sale & Harvey. Does that make it right, no, nor does it make it wrong, the point is people who know more about the game than you or I thought highly enough of him to pick him 5th in the draft. He's 27 not 30, 31 and some players do take longer than others to put it all together. He added a pitch which has turned him into an all-star. Read the Brian Bannister piece about him comparing him highly to Rich Hill except he's 10 years younger and under control for 2 more years. Hill had less of a track record then Pomeranz yet everyone was on board with that move. It was a good move even if AE becomes an ace because of where we are as a team and how far away for MLB AE is. And all the tangibles that go along with those points that have been listed here by many others. You can think that losing AE stinks, I have no problem at all with that (I in fact agree with that), but by now most should have realized it is a move as a GM you should make. It all depends on how much you buy of what he did over the first few months of the season. He has a track record of being a good left handed reliever. Check. He had a promising first three months with the Padres. So if he is indeed an emerging ace, then the Sox did well to make the trade. If he is a guy who cannot make it past the sixth inning, then it's fair to question how good he is. So far he's been bitten by the long ball which hadn't been an issue. We know his command is spotty. Therefore high pitch counts, and fewer innings pitched, and more bullpen innings than you'd like to see. He's 27 and evolving. Fine, but how much better is his command going to get because at this point? Whether you like to admit it or not, it's a fair question. If I would have told you before the season the Sox should trade Anderson Espinoza for Drew Pomeranz, I would think you would have responded, "Are you crazy?!" Then he had three good months for the Padres, and suddenly he's a must have. Maybe you're right, and it's a move all GMs make now - as it seems like open season to really overpay for talent (unless you're Dave Stewart). I mean, people here were gagging at the quantity if not quality of what the Red Sox gave up for Kimbrel, but since then we've seen a lot of GMs give up their best prospects for talent in moves I don't think we would have seen awhile back. Like I said before I was actually ok with the Kimbrel move because the Sox give up very little that can actually come back and bite them in the butt, but Espinoza can really come back to haunt the Sox if he develops into what the scouts think he can become (and relying very heavily on a stat line for an 18 year old kid in A ball where he's the youngest in the league is a bit much - not saying he doesn't need to work on things, but at 18 he has plenty of time and talent to fix them). The one thing I see from you is this arrogance that everybody on this board should think one way or another on this AE/Pomeranz deal. I understand why people here, if they were GMs, would make this deal, but it's hardly crazy to me to imagine why some here, including myself, would not have made this deal. Just like I understand why a majority of this board would not have made the Kimbrel deal, yet I would have made it (and be aggravated that Kimbrel, young in his prime and established with a long track record) hasn't pitched like the closer I was trading for). It comes down to how do you view Pomeranz and how do you view Espinoza? I view Pomeranz as a guy who'll rarely make it into the 7th inning because his command isn't good enough to allow him to, so I see him as a #3 guy at best who had a great stretch of 3 months in SD pitching in a ballpark that's good to pitch in (and yeah, I know he pitched well on the road, too) and I question if he'll even necessarily be a solid middle of the rotation starter with the Red Sox. I don't like having that question in an acquisition when I'm trading the best pitching prospect the Red Sox have had in a long time, one that scouts believe will either front a rotation or pitch toward the top of one, especially when one of the biggest and costliest failures of the Red Sox is to develop good young pitching so they don't have to trade for it or have to spend $217 million on it. You are trying to control the narrative, he was not good for a few months he was great and arguably as good as any pitcher in the NL past the midpoint in the season and he developed a new pitch so by no means is that cherry picking as there is a definitive reason behind the stats to establish it as real and not a fluky stretch. He also has the pedigree to support this is not a fluke but a talented pitcher reaching his potential. You acknowledge he pitched well on the road only to belittle it otherwise you would not have mentioned the ballpark. You can't play that both ways. Now that is being arrogant, to throw a line about ballparks out there to diminish it and then counter it. If you yourself could counter it, then its being thrown out there to stick even when you yourself know it to be factually wrong.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 31, 2016 17:25:51 GMT -5
In addition to Chapman? I mean, Miller over Chapman makes sense because he's got a couple extra years. But there's a point of diminishing returns. I guess I'd agree with you in certain circumstances, and the Cubs are probably one. A great team with basically no holes but the one they're trying to fill makes more sense than a solid but flawed team (like the Sox) giving up big pieces for a better chance at contending. In that instance (an outstanding team with a great young core and a loaded minor league system), "going for it" makes more sense to me. That's kind of why I'd wished the Sox had followed the '15 Cubs blueprint and stood pat. I think they were one year (and one offseason) from getting there. But, again, at some point it's just time to trust the guys you have. Trade away too much talent, and if something catastrophic happens, like a major injury, it's a killer for the next season, too. Do you not see the flaw in your own logic. The trade was not strictly about this year, it was about this season and the next 2. You mention we are likely a year away from being in the right position to go for it. If we had not landed Pomeranz would we not be in the same exact position next year? Or are you missing that you are stating that there would have still been holes in the team that had to be addressed. You wanted to wait to see if something better came along? And if it did not? What then? Now we wasted 2 year of the prime year of the killer B's. Right now the team is not playing well but the only hole I see is the bullpen (JF too?) but then again losing your closer (Kimbrell) and both set-up men (Smith & Uehara) all at the same time can cause that to happen, funny how that works. Even if this year is a long shot due to injuries, etc. we should be there when the dance starts, more importantly we should be there for the next 2 as well. Nearly the entire team will be back with only a few notable exceptions, Ortiz, Ziegler, Uehara and Tazawa. And I'd be surprised if the Sox do not resign at least 2 of the relievers listed. There were plenty of options, including standing pat, picking up someone for less, signing a starter in the offseason. So no, I don't think my logic is flawed. I do think yours is, since you're presenting it as an either/or scenario. I liked Pomeranz, but not at that price.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 31, 2016 17:33:04 GMT -5
It all depends on how much you buy of what he did over the first few months of the season. He has a track record of being a good left handed reliever. Check. He had a promising first three months with the Padres. So if he is indeed an emerging ace, then the Sox did well to make the trade. If he is a guy who cannot make it past the sixth inning, then it's fair to question how good he is. So far he's been bitten by the long ball which hadn't been an issue. We know his command is spotty. Therefore high pitch counts, and fewer innings pitched, and more bullpen innings than you'd like to see. He's 27 and evolving. Fine, but how much better is his command going to get because at this point? Whether you like to admit it or not, it's a fair question. If I would have told you before the season the Sox should trade Anderson Espinoza for Drew Pomeranz, I would think you would have responded, "Are you crazy?!" Then he had three good months for the Padres, and suddenly he's a must have. Maybe you're right, and it's a move all GMs make now - as it seems like open season to really overpay for talent (unless you're Dave Stewart). I mean, people here were gagging at the quantity if not quality of what the Red Sox gave up for Kimbrel, but since then we've seen a lot of GMs give up their best prospects for talent in moves I don't think we would have seen awhile back. Like I said before I was actually ok with the Kimbrel move because the Sox give up very little that can actually come back and bite them in the butt, but Espinoza can really come back to haunt the Sox if he develops into what the scouts think he can become (and relying very heavily on a stat line for an 18 year old kid in A ball where he's the youngest in the league is a bit much - not saying he doesn't need to work on things, but at 18 he has plenty of time and talent to fix them). The one thing I see from you is this arrogance that everybody on this board should think one way or another on this AE/Pomeranz deal. I understand why people here, if they were GMs, would make this deal, but it's hardly crazy to me to imagine why some here, including myself, would not have made this deal. Just like I understand why a majority of this board would not have made the Kimbrel deal, yet I would have made it (and be aggravated that Kimbrel, young in his prime and established with a long track record) hasn't pitched like the closer I was trading for). It comes down to how do you view Pomeranz and how do you view Espinoza? I view Pomeranz as a guy who'll rarely make it into the 7th inning because his command isn't good enough to allow him to, so I see him as a #3 guy at best who had a great stretch of 3 months in SD pitching in a ballpark that's good to pitch in (and yeah, I know he pitched well on the road, too) and I question if he'll even necessarily be a solid middle of the rotation starter with the Red Sox. I don't like having that question in an acquisition when I'm trading the best pitching prospect the Red Sox have had in a long time, one that scouts believe will either front a rotation or pitch toward the top of one, especially when one of the biggest and costliest failures of the Red Sox is to develop good young pitching so they don't have to trade for it or have to spend $217 million on it. You are trying to control the narrative, he was not good for a few months he was great and arguably as good as any pitcher in the NL past the midpoint in the season and he developed a new pitch so by no means is that cherry picking as there is a definitive reason behind the stats to establish it as real and not a fluky stretch. He also has the pedigree to support this is not a fluke but a talented pitcher reaching his potential. You acknowledge he pitched well on the road only to belittle it otherwise you would not have mentioned the ballpark. You can't play that both ways. Now that is being arrogant, to throw a line about ballparks out there to diminish it and then counter it. If you yourself could counter it, then its being thrown out there to stick even when you yourself know it to be factually wrong. Seems like you're the one trying to control the narrative. Regardless of how well he was pitching, it was a little over six weeks of doing so. New pitch or not, it's minimal evidence that he can sustain it. Maybe it convinces you that sustaining it is *more* likely than before, but it's certainly not the sort of performance over an extended time that makes a rational person confident it's a new baseline. Maybe a year and a half for me, not the incredible six-week stretch or even excellent half-season.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 31, 2016 18:25:07 GMT -5
There are really good arguments in favor of trading for Drew Pomeranz. "He made the All-Star team" isn't one of them. It shouldn't even need to be said, but lots of players made the All-Star team in seasons that were total flukes. And if Pomeranz had been shut out of the All-Star Game for some reason it's not like his value would have been lower.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jul 31, 2016 18:26:39 GMT -5
I'll let you know in 2.5 years, or more than 3 starts. Why wait so long? Part of this argument is they desperately needed him for THIS year. He's failed spectacularly thus far. I'm willing to wager that next season is going to be rough as well as he's blowing by his career high in IP. You do know his first start with the Sox was the first time he pitched in 13 days with a catcher he had never worked with before? I call that the reality of the situation. His second start he pitched 6 inning and allowed 2 runs both coming in his last inning of work. Failed? That would be in your rush to judgement.
|
|
|