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 jodyreidnichols on Jul 31, 2016 18:45:54 GMT -5
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. Yet, I've directly responded to your every point and you? You dodge and evade and have not countered any points made. Six weeks? Try over a half season and over 100 IP. ERA W L GP GS IP..... H R ER HR BB SO AVG 2.47 8 7 17 17 102.0 67 30 28 08 41 115 .184. Some of you debating this were all on board with Rich Hill and that was for 4 starts yet here we have 17 and from a 27 YO who added a new pitch and has been endorsed by DDo who traded for Fullmer at last years deadline, Curt Schilling, Brian Bannister but you know best. If he had a longer track record (of course that would have been nice) he would have cost more. The deal is being able to see what will be before the masses do and by the time they do then there is no deal to be made. You understand that concept, yes?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 31, 2016 19:48:11 GMT -5
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. First game he was cruising for the first 3 innings and then completely imploded in the 4th and couldn't record a single out. I don't think that's because of extra rest or a new catcher. It was against the Giants as well, a team he's familiar with. His second start was 6 innings with 2 ER, that's decent. His 3rd start was 5 ER in 5.1 IP against a very weak Angels team. There's still time for him to show value for this season, but there isn't many more starts left in the season. This deal was made with this season in mind, otherwise they could have waited until the off season to make a trade. If he works out in years 2 and 3 then sure, but his workload this year is also concerning for next season.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jul 31, 2016 20:02:24 GMT -5
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. First game he was cruising for the first 3 innings and then completely imploded in the 4th and couldn't record a single out. I don't think that's because of extra rest or a new catcher. It was against the Giants as well, a team he's familiar with. His second start was 6 innings with 2 ER, that's decent. His 3rd start was 5 ER in 5.1 IP against a very weak Angels team. There's still time for him to show value for this season, but there isn't many more starts left in the season. This deal was made with this season in mind, otherwise they could have waited until the off season to make a trade. If he works out in years 2 and 3 then sure, but his workload this year is also concerning for next season. Do you not see that your explanation of game 1 in no way shape or form is contradictory to my statement and if anything it supports it? That is so obvious as to convince me you have made up your mind and no logic can change your mind. The deal was not made solely with this season in mind but it was made knowing they also owned his contract for the next 2 seasons. These are not exclusive points from each other but rather married in the thought and execution of the trade. Again you have blinders on and do not want to see the forest because you've hit your head on a tree and that's all you can see right now. Workloads can be safely increased. see here, www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=199&position=Pand explain how DLowe went from 92 IP to 220 and finished 3 in CY Young voting. Is it a concern, sure, will it prevent him at 27/28 YO from making the jump, no.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jul 31, 2016 20:17:12 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. Four runs in 5 innings is bad. IMO that's more important than any other stat. And not being totally awful isn't good enough.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 31, 2016 20:53:30 GMT -5
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. Yet, I've directly responded to your every point and you? You dodge and evade and have not countered any points made. Six weeks? Try over a half season and over 100 IP. ERA W L GP GS IP..... H R ER HR BB SO AVG 2.47 8 7 17 17 102.0 67 30 28 08 41 115 .184. Some of you debating this were all on board with Rich Hill and that was for 4 starts yet here we have 17 and from a 27 YO who added a new pitch and has been endorsed by DDo who traded for Fullmer at last years deadline, Curt Schilling, Brian Bannister but you know best. If he had a longer track record (of course that would have been nice) he would have cost more. The deal is being able to see what will be before the masses do and by the time they do then there is no deal to be made. You understand that concept, yes? I'm not evading anything. You're presenting his half-season stats--if you bothered to look more closely, they're that good because of an outstanding 6-7 week run. After that, his numbers were good but not superb. "Added a new pitch an has been endorsed..."? Please, give me a break. Obviously they wouldn't have traded for him if they didn't like him. I can disagree with it being a good idea. I don't need to "counter" anything. Yes, he has added a cutter. Yes, he had a great start to the year (although he's had several rough starts since, with two 5-ER and one 6-ER game). He averages less than 6 IP per start. He averages between 90-91 mph with his fastball. He was pitching in a weaker-hitting league, in a division with three parks (including his home park) amenable to flyball pitchers. As for Rich Hill, he had just as much of a stretch as Pomeranz, only he did it in the AL (and last year in Boston). But that doesn't mean I'd trade Espinoza or Kopech for him. I (and other people here) can accept the facts as they are, and still not like the trade. It's possible to be skeptical. "You understand that concept, yes?"
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 31, 2016 20:58:16 GMT -5
First game he was cruising for the first 3 innings and then completely imploded in the 4th and couldn't record a single out. I don't think that's because of extra rest or a new catcher. It was against the Giants as well, a team he's familiar with. His second start was 6 innings with 2 ER, that's decent. His 3rd start was 5 ER in 5.1 IP against a very weak Angels team. There's still time for him to show value for this season, but there isn't many more starts left in the season. This deal was made with this season in mind, otherwise they could have waited until the off season to make a trade. If he works out in years 2 and 3 then sure, but his workload this year is also concerning for next season. Do you not see that your explanation of game 1 in no way shape or form is contradictory to my statement and if anything it supports it? That is so obvious as to convince me you have made up your mind and no logic can change your mind. The deal was not made solely with this season in mind but it was made knowing they also owned his contract for the next 2 seasons. These are not exclusive points from each other but rather married in the thought and execution of the trade. Again you have blinders on and do not want to see the forest because you've hit your head on a tree and that's all you can see right now. Workloads can be safely increased. see here, www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=199&position=Pand explain how DLowe went from 92 IP to 220 and finished 3 in CY Young voting. Is it a concern, sure, will it prevent him at 27/28 YO from making the jump, no. How does it support it when he was awesome for the first 3 innings and then imploded? Wouldn't too much rest/new catcher have the exact opposite effect where he would be terrible to start the game and then settle in? He was pretty good those first 3 innings. Him being controlled for 2 more seasons was certainly a factor, but they made an early move to help this season. Sure, they can be, but teams don't typically do that for fear of injury and under performance. m.bbref.com/m?p=XXplayersXXcXXcarmofa01-pitch.shtml&t=all_standard_pitchingm.bbref.com/m?p=XXplayersXXhXXharvema01-pitch.shtml&t=all_standard_pitching
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 31, 2016 20:59:29 GMT -5
First game he was cruising for the first 3 innings and then completely imploded in the 4th and couldn't record a single out. I don't think that's because of extra rest or a new catcher. It was against the Giants as well, a team he's familiar with. His second start was 6 innings with 2 ER, that's decent. His 3rd start was 5 ER in 5.1 IP against a very weak Angels team. There's still time for him to show value for this season, but there isn't many more starts left in the season. This deal was made with this season in mind, otherwise they could have waited until the off season to make a trade. If he works out in years 2 and 3 then sure, but his workload this year is also concerning for next season. Do you not see that your explanation of game 1 in no way shape or form is contradictory to my statement and if anything it supports it? That is so obvious as to convince me you have made up your mind and no logic can change your mind. The deal was not made solely with this season in mind but it was made knowing they also owned his contract for the next 2 seasons. These are not exclusive points from each other but rather married in the thought and execution of the trade. Again you have blinders on and do not want to see the forest because you've hit your head on a tree and that's all you can see right now. Workloads can be safely increased. see here, www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=199&position=Pand explain how DLowe went from 92 IP to 220 and finished 3 in CY Young voting. Is it a concern, sure, will it prevent him at 27/28 YO from making the jump, no. I think you vastly overrate your own ability to think logically. In fact, you're basically projecting here...everything you claim he's doing, you're doing yourself. You've made up your mind, decided "right" and "wrong", and will argue it bitterly with ad hominem attacks and snark as nauseum. Just stop. Accept that some people don't like the trade because they aren't as bullish on Pomeranz as you. It's as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 1, 2016 6:31:45 GMT -5
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. Four runs in 5 innings is bad. IMO that's more important than any other stat. And not being totally awful isn't good enough. Fine, give up on every pitcher after 3 starts and move on to the next. Good business model.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Aug 1, 2016 7:30:30 GMT -5
Four runs in 5 innings is bad. IMO that's more important than any other stat. And not being totally awful isn't good enough. Fine, give up on every pitcher after 3 starts and move on to the next. Good business model. I didn't say I was giving up on him. I said I didn't like his postgame interview though only caught a blip. I further said that if he continues to pitch bad (such as 4 runs in 5 innings) and he doesn't own up to his bad performances (unlike Price), he is going to have a short stay in Boston. Nowhere did I even hint on giving up on him.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Aug 1, 2016 7:48:24 GMT -5
Espinoza last night for Fort Wayne Tin Caps: 5 IP. 3H. 0R. 2BB. 4K. No decision.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Aug 1, 2016 13:05:15 GMT -5
Espinoza last night for Fort Wayne Tin Caps: 5 IP. 3H. 0R. 2BB. 4K. No decision. Can't the Sox make up an injury for Pomeranz and have the Padres make the trade back? Such a steal for SD.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Aug 1, 2016 13:45:45 GMT -5
Can't the Sox make up an injury for Pomeranz and have the Padres make the trade back? Such a steal for SD. Wait, you disliked the deal? I was under the impression you loved it.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 2, 2016 11:24:12 GMT -5
In 102 innings in SD Pomeranz gave up 8 HR's, he's given up 4 so far in 14 innings here. I'm not ready to start beating the anti-Pomeranz drum just yet. He's also had some bad defense behind him, so far....I'd say his results could easily be just some bad luck.
|
|
|
Post by theghostofjoecronin on Aug 2, 2016 14:20:38 GMT -5
Can't the Sox make up an injury for Pomeranz and have the Padres make the trade back? Such a steal for SD. Wait, you disliked the deal? I was under the impression you loved it. He did love it, can't you see the nice Padres hat on his head?
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 87
|
Post by brisox on Aug 13, 2016 14:41:20 GMT -5
It's a really good speculation . Stay tuned . Interesting. He'd be a solid 25th guy on the roster as he can pinch-run, survive defensively in a few positions (I'd hope), has some pop and some big-time speed, and can be a real option at the plate. Look forward to seeing him. Sorry this is off-topic but I had to ask you as you haven't been on in awhile - what was the thinking behind the Espinoza/Pomeranz deal as far as was there a sharp divide among the FO on the willingness to give up a rare pitching prospect the caliber of Espinoza for a guy who has yet to really establish himself? Or was it a slam dunk deal as far as the FO was concerned? The deals for pitching available at the time were absurd 2-3 top prospects some even wanted MLB players. this deal was 1 prospect for what they still believe is a solid #2-3 starter with control. AE was a high price to pay but the push is on to win this year while Papi is in uniform. Nobody thinks it was a good deal, but the trade off to PD was a refusal to move anyone else which he(DD) didn't do and now they are getting aggressive with moving up top guys.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 13, 2016 17:25:07 GMT -5
Interesting. He'd be a solid 25th guy on the roster as he can pinch-run, survive defensively in a few positions (I'd hope), has some pop and some big-time speed, and can be a real option at the plate. Look forward to seeing him. Sorry this is off-topic but I had to ask you as you haven't been on in awhile - what was the thinking behind the Espinoza/Pomeranz deal as far as was there a sharp divide among the FO on the willingness to give up a rare pitching prospect the caliber of Espinoza for a guy who has yet to really establish himself? Or was it a slam dunk deal as far as the FO was concerned? The deals for pitching available at the time were absurd 2-3 top prospects some even wanted MLB players. this deal was 1 prospect for what they still believe is a solid #2-3 starter with control. AE was a high price to pay but the push is on to win this year while Papi is in uniform. Nobody thinks it was a good deal, but the trade off to PD was a refusal to move anyone else which he(DD) didn't do and now they are getting aggressive with moving up top guys. Despite my distaste for the deal as always I appreciate your response. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 13, 2016 17:31:56 GMT -5
The deals for pitching available at the time were absurd 2-3 top prospects some even wanted MLB players. this deal was 1 prospect for what they still believe is a solid #2-3 starter with control. AE was a high price to pay but the push is on to win this year while Papi is in uniform. Nobody thinks it was a good deal, but the trade off to PD was a refusal to move anyone else which he(DD) didn't do and now they are getting aggressive with moving up top guys. Despite my distaste for the deal as always I appreciate your response. Thanks. It actually sounds like the FO agreed with a lot of us: too much to give up, but too close to getting back to the playoffs not to do it. I hated the deal, and yet I completely understand it. Sounds like they went to great lengths to find any other option.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 13, 2016 17:37:42 GMT -5
Despite my distaste for the deal as always I appreciate your response. Thanks. It actually sounds like the FO agreed with a lot of us: too much to give up, but too close to getting back to the playoffs not to do it. I hated the deal, and yet I completely understand it. Sounds like they went to great lengths to find any other option. The sad irony of it is that Buchholz and E-Rod FINALLY started pitching better making it not worth the move. If either one of them had shown any signs of life they could have avoided that deal. My gut tells me Pomeranz will not be much more than a 5 and a fraction inning pitcher with spotty command while Espinoza will flourish in time with the Padres and be a top of the rotation type starter - somebody the Red Sox will really really regret losing. We'll see if that's what happens. Hope I'm really, really wrong on this.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 13, 2016 17:47:31 GMT -5
It actually sounds like the FO agreed with a lot of us: too much to give up, but too close to getting back to the playoffs not to do it. I hated the deal, and yet I completely understand it. Sounds like they went to great lengths to find any other option. The sad irony of it is that Buchholz and E-Rod FINALLY started pitching better making it not worth the move. If either one of them had shown any signs of life they could have avoided that deal. My gut tells me Pomeranz will not be much more than a 5 and a fraction inning pitcher with spotty command while Espinoza will flourish in time with the Padres and be a top of the rotation type starter - somebody the Red Sox will really really regret losing. We'll see if that's what happens. Hope I'm really, really wrong on this. Same here. I think Pomeranz helps stabilize the rotation for the next two years, and he may get better. But it was a high price to pay. I argued all along that Rodriguez would round into form, but even then there was a hole without Clay. To add insult to injury, Clay really has no avenue to significantly rebuild value. He's stuck until/unless someone gets hurt. Just a cruddy turn of events all around. I still think they should've gotten someone like Jimmy Nelson earlier in the year, but meh...hindsight and all. The good news is that if they pick up Buchholz's option, they have an outstanding 6th pitcher at a reasonable price. That's good depth and limits their offseason needs. If Moncada comes up and looks good, DH may be covered as well through a combo of Hanley/Panda/whomever. At that point it's just bullpen needs.
|
|
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 Aug 14, 2016 3:50:23 GMT -5
Pomeranz should easily have 3 wins so far. Terrible luck on his side defense AND bullpen have been awful in his outings. You guys can blame clay for the trade all you want. I blame Owens. He should of been ready by now and he is a lefty just like Pomeranz. As soon as Espinosa is in the majors performing is when you haters can start the crying. Right now root for your damn team and stop all the crying about everything and the could have should haves. We are spoiled Red Sox fans so act like it god dammit lol
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 14, 2016 8:17:09 GMT -5
Pomeranz should easily have 3 wins so far. Terrible luck on his side defense AND bullpen have been awful in his outings. You guys can blame clay for the trade all you want. I blame Owens. He should of been ready by now and he is a lefty just like Pomeranz. As soon as Espinosa is in the majors performing is when you haters can start the crying. Right now root for your damn team and stop all the crying about everything and the could have should haves. We are spoiled Red Sox fans so act like it god dammit lol Well I agree with you on Owens being a big piece of the problem as he went backwards this season. His control has always been spotty at best. This year it's totally unacceptable. Disliking a trade doesn't mean that you're "crying" about it. You don't get kicked out of the Red Sox fanclub if you disagree with a move. It's really possible to dislike the trade and root like hell for Pomeranz to succeed, which he'd probably do more of if his outings weren't so damn short making his games virtual bullpen games, which hasn't been a good proposition. I assume you can walk and chew gum at the same time? I can root for my damn team (as difficult as they can make it at times) and dislike the trade - and can even do it without "crying".
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 14, 2016 10:10:55 GMT -5
Pomeranz should easily have 3 wins so far. Terrible luck on his side defense AND bullpen have been awful in his outings. You guys can blame clay for the trade all you want. I blame Owens. He should of been ready by now and he is a lefty just like Pomeranz. As soon as Espinosa is in the majors performing is when you haters can start the crying. Right now root for your damn team and stop all the crying about everything and the could have should haves. We are spoiled Red Sox fans so act like it god dammit lol Well I agree with you on Owens being a big piece of the problem as he went backwards this season. His control has always been spotty at best. This year it's totally unacceptable. Disliking a trade doesn't mean that you're "crying" about it. You don't get kicked out of the Red Sox fanclub if you disagree with a move. It's really possible to dislike the trade and root like hell for Pomeranz to succeed, which he'd probably do more of if his outings weren't so damn short making his games virtual bullpen games, which hasn't been a good proposition. I assume you can walk and chew gum at the same time? I can root for my damn team (as difficult as they can make it at times) and dislike the trade - and can even do it without "crying". Hold on, The people on this board are very passionate about the sox and the Espinosa trade appears to be very painful, especially since drew has not exactly set the world on fire. We were all led to believe that this was a superstar in the making and all got close to him as a player. Then he is traded, big shock . This may turn out to be another bagwell for Anderson trade. Then again drew gets used to boston and pitches like porcello has this year. We will see where Espinosa is in 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Aug 14, 2016 10:35:12 GMT -5
Given my sometimes obsessive nature, I still have fantasies of the Redsox getting the best of both worlds- several Pomeranz starts, watching Rodriguez stabilize, and clay and Johnson, Elias and Owens do so a bit- and now rescind the trade. I guess that's a no go because of the relationships with not just SD, but everyone else, and also their belief that Pomeranz will do better the next few years and be helpful now.
|
|
|
Post by bnich on Aug 14, 2016 11:30:58 GMT -5
He's under team control through 2017. Getting trade in season, to a contender and the pressure cooker of Boston isn't the easiest move to make. Maybe he hasn't gotten quite comfortable yet. Remember Porcello's first year? I know being in a pennant race with a serious chance to make a World Series and the cost of the trade, we all want Pomeranz to pitch lights out. It hasn't happened yet. But by no means does that make it an awful trade. As someone else said, he has had pretty bad luck. It was a trade that had to be made.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 14, 2016 11:57:36 GMT -5
Given my sometimes obsessive nature, I still have fantasies of the Redsox getting the best of both worlds- several Pomeranz starts, watching Rodriguez stabilize, and clay and Johnson, Elias and Owens do so a bit- and now rescind the trade. I guess that's a no go because of the relationships with not just SD, but everyone else, and also their belief that Pomeranz will do better the next few years and be helpful now. You've mention rescinding the trade a couple times now. That's not a thing that can be done, unless you mean it in a figurative sense (like trading Pomeranz for a prospect) that I am missing.
|
|
|