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 rjp313jr on Aug 24, 2016 8:04:59 GMT -5
I don't hate trading Espinoza but I didn't love the return for him. If The Pomeranian ends up going deeper into games than he ever did in Detroit then I'll feel differently. And his last 2 starts have done just that which is a pleasant surprise. In Cleveland he went 7.2 and in Detroit he was only at 51 pitches when rain shortened his outing after 5 so you have to reasonably believe he goes 7-8 innings.
He never made it past 7 in San Diego. That could be for a number of reasons.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 24, 2016 11:13:11 GMT -5
My perception is that some people appear to be very down on him and many of those are people who hated the deal because of AE. I'm speaking in generalities. This is the second time I've done that and both times you took it to heart as If I made the claim about you or that everyone who thought x believed y and both times that was wrong. That speaks more about your perception then it does mine. It appears you are trying to argue for it's own sake, and I'm not taking the bait. Well, how about this - try not quoting me and I won't take what you're saying to refer to me personally. No-one quoted you.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 24, 2016 11:16:44 GMT -5
With all of the way-better pitchers that were traded at the deadline, what would you have done differently? Keep Buchholz in the rotation and then barely miss the playoffs? I personally wanted Rich Hill, but he hasn't pitched in a month so I was wrong there. Honestly, I wouldn't have done anything if the best I could get was a 3/4 starter for a top 15 prospect. Remember, this is all predicated on the fictional belief that they expected Pomeranz to be a 3/4 starter when they traded for him. I said all along that a trade for a starter was not necessary because this team was only going to get into the playoffs with internal improvement. They could have added anyone in the game and if Price, ERod and Buchholz don't pitch better if won't matter. Let's be real. This team is pitching great but how much of an impact has Pomeranz had on that? The major impacts have come from internal improvements and the minor trades. Price, Rodriguez and Buchholz have made major strides. Leon and Benintendi have had major impacts on the lineup. Big trades rarely have big impacts midsession. The nice thing about Pomeranz is he's not a rental and Espinoza is a single A pitcher so I'm not upset about the trade but I certainly hope the Red Sox expect more of him than he's giving them or they were dumb to make that deal. You mean like DDo did last year w/ Micheal Fullmer. Even if your overall point stands it doesn't mean it shouldn't be explored and the fact that he did so just last year gives it some credence that maybe he has an idea of what he's doing.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 24, 2016 11:19:54 GMT -5
Actually, he's doing just that in August. We all need to get up to speed, here. This is compiled from BR (click to enlarge): You don't consider that a selective small sample? I'm well aware that he's been significantly better this month, otherwise his ERA would still be 7 and not 4. Hence, my saying "they expect...and I'm beginning to suspect they might be right." But a 4-start stretch hardly establishes a baseline. If he gets through the end of the year pitching like he has, I'm more inclined to view his first few Sox starts as a blip. I tend to think they were, but I'm also incredulous that he's a true-talent ace in the AL. So his season means nothing? His last 4 starts mean nothing but the 3 before that (only 2 of which were bad) mean something? That has not 1 shred of logic behind it. If anything not pitching for 13 days AND being traded from SD to Boston is the 1 game outlier. All the rest stands on it's own.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 24, 2016 11:27:59 GMT -5
You don't consider that a selective small sample? I'm well aware that he's been significantly better this month, otherwise his ERA would still be 7 and not 4. Hence, my saying "they expect...and I'm beginning to suspect they might be right." But a 4-start stretch hardly establishes a baseline. If he gets through the end of the year pitching like he has, I'm more inclined to view his first few Sox starts as a blip. I tend to think they were, but I'm also incredulous that he's a true-talent ace in the AL. So his season means nothing? His last 4 starts mean nothing but the 3 before that (only 2 of which were bad) mean something? That has not 1 shred of logic behind it. If anything not pitching for 13 days AND being traded from SD to Boston is the 1 game outlier. All the rest stands on it's own. These comments are in reference to my saying that he had not reproduced what he did in SD. It's earlier in the thread. You really do seem to thrive on overreacting and fabricating straw men. If you can find where I explicitly stated that "his season means nothing," feel free. Otherwise, please find bridge and insert self beneath it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 24, 2016 12:03:53 GMT -5
Please cut out the personal stuff. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 24, 2016 12:27:23 GMT -5
Please cut out the personal stuff. Thanks. Done.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 24, 2016 13:00:51 GMT -5
My thoughts on this trade: 1) Trading Espinoza stinks 2) I like Pomeranz (and advocated acquiring him well before the trade), but I'm not convinced (yet) that his newfound baseline in SD is truly a baseline. 3) The fact that Pomeranz had a definable change in approach (adding a cutter) is a very significant indicator that he IS at a new baseline. I remain cautiously optimistic. 4) I agree that if the Sox had acquired him thinking that he would be anything less than a 2, it would have been a silly move for them to make. I am also under the impression (and I think most here are) that they think he'll be *at least* a 2, and maybe more like a 1a. 5) There are a number of hurdles for him to overcome to do that (fly tendencies, going from the best pitcher's park in baseball to a hitter's park, tougher divisional competition, different league). So I maintain some agnosticism until he reproduces his SD numbers for an extended period in Boston. 6) Pomeranz greatly solidifies the rotation in the offseason, providing a good amount of roster security and simplifying team-building efforts. 7) Various other options were available, but this was the one with by far the least short-term risk. 8) It was a good value trade, particularly given the market. 9) Pomeranz is a good bet to retain or even build value, so if they can't or don't want to extend him, they get two years of service and then can probably recoup a fair amount of AE's lost value. 10) It still sucks to lose Espinoza.
All things considered, I completely understand why they made the trade, and I think they got fair value. That's why feelings are so mixed, because they gave up a lot but probably got a lot.I'm unconvinced but hopeful that Pomeranz is who I'm guessing the Sox think he is. If he keeps pitching like he has in August, he will be. I liken the whole thing to the agnosticism many people had about JBJ last year. Some people just want more data, more consistency, to be convinced on certain players. JBJ worked out, and hopefully Pomeranz does, too.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 24, 2016 13:16:56 GMT -5
...You don't consider that a selective small sample? I'm well aware that he's been significantly better this month, otherwise his ERA would still be 7 and not 4. Hence, my saying "they expect...and I'm beginning to suspect they might be right." But a 4-start stretch hardly establishes a baseline. If he gets through the end of the year pitching like he has, I'm more inclined to view his first few Sox starts as a blip. I tend to think they were, but I'm also incredulous that he's a true-talent ace in the AL. Of course it's a small sample. A small sample is all he has since he's only pitched 7 games for the Sox! You suggested he hasn't been the same guy as he was in San Diego. After his first three games (and in one of those he gave up 2 runs in four innings) he seems to have settled right in to the point where he may be just that guy. That's all I was saying.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 24, 2016 14:27:36 GMT -5
So his season means nothing? His last 4 starts mean nothing but the 3 before that (only 2 of which were bad) mean something? That has not 1 shred of logic behind it. If anything not pitching for 13 days AND being traded from SD to Boston is the 1 game outlier. All the rest stands on it's own. These comments are in reference to my saying that he had not reproduced what he did in SD. It's earlier in the thread. You really do seem to thrive on overreacting and fabricating straw men. If you can find where I explicitly stated that "his season means nothing," feel free. Otherwise, please find bridge and insert self beneath it. Really? You comments 'are in reference to saying he had not reproduced what he did in SD' by claiming the recent 4 start were SSS. Do you not see just how flawed your logic is here? If his last 4 starts are SSS as it relates to the season than you must be indicating the same thing for the season. And because he has reproduced here for at least 4 starts what he has in SD as asserted by another poster that you refer to above you therefore indicate that the previous 3 starts (actually only 2 of the first 3 were bad) are indicate of what to expect or it at least has credence to suggest the four don't relate to the season. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Stop trying to control the narrative of Pomeranz.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 24, 2016 15:57:42 GMT -5
...You don't consider that a selective small sample? I'm well aware that he's been significantly better this month, otherwise his ERA would still be 7 and not 4. Hence, my saying "they expect...and I'm beginning to suspect they might be right." But a 4-start stretch hardly establishes a baseline. If he gets through the end of the year pitching like he has, I'm more inclined to view his first few Sox starts as a blip. I tend to think they were, but I'm also incredulous that he's a true-talent ace in the AL. Of course it's a small sample. A small sample is all he has since he's only pitched 7 games for the Sox! You suggested he hasn't been the same guy as he was in San Diego. After his first three games (and in one of those he gave up 2 runs in four innings) he seems to have settled right in to the point where he may be just that guy. That's all I was saying. I agree that he looks like he's settling in, which would be huge if he really turns out to be a true-talent low-3 FIP guy who beats that with his ERA and puts up sub- or low-.200 BAA. Certainly, Price and Porcello's struggles should put those first few starts of Pomeranz's in perspective.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 24, 2016 16:12:16 GMT -5
These comments are in reference to my saying that he had not reproduced what he did in SD. It's earlier in the thread. You really do seem to thrive on overreacting and fabricating straw men. If you can find where I explicitly stated that "his season means nothing," feel free. Otherwise, please find bridge and insert self beneath it. Really? You comments 'are in reference to saying he had not reproduced what he did in SD' by claiming the recent 4 start were SSS. Do you not see just how flawed your logic is here? If his last 4 starts are SSS as it relates to the season than you must be indicating the same thing for the season. And because he has reproduced here for at least 4 starts what he has in SD as asserted by another poster that you refer to above you therefore indicate that the previous 3 starts (actually only 2 of the first 3 were bad) are indicate of what to expect or it at least has credence to suggest the four don't relate to the season. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Stop trying to control the narrative of Pomeranz. You can't help but project, can you? "Trying to control?..." That is **exactly** what you insist on doing. Pomeranz is in a different league, in a much more offensively-minded division, in a home park that is much less forgiving to pitchers with flyball tendencies, especially lefties. I expect his baseline performance to be different. THAT is logic. I don't see his last 4 starts as the major indicative of his ability to perform in the AL any more than I do the first three. There is insufficient data for me to believe that he will continue to pitch at #1 level. My initial statement was that he hadn't reproduced what he did in SD. Are you genuinely disputing that? I then said that **to me** four good starts does not establish a new baseline, any more than three bad ones does. It's a start, but it does not provide incontrovertible truth as you seem hell-bent on claiming. I'm forming an opinion based on facts. I'm more conservative about my expectations for Pomeranz than you. Why you seem to be incapable of respectful disagreement, I do not understand.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 24, 2016 16:49:43 GMT -5
Again, please cut out the petty bickering. There is a point where you both need to just let it go, and we've reached (and gone far beyond) that point. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 25, 2016 11:18:24 GMT -5
Really? You comments 'are in reference to saying he had not reproduced what he did in SD' by claiming the recent 4 start were SSS. Do you not see just how flawed your logic is here? If his last 4 starts are SSS as it relates to the season than you must be indicating the same thing for the season. And because he has reproduced here for at least 4 starts what he has in SD as asserted by another poster that you refer to above you therefore indicate that the previous 3 starts (actually only 2 of the first 3 were bad) are indicate of what to expect or it at least has credence to suggest the four don't relate to the season. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Stop trying to control the narrative of Pomeranz. You can't help but project, can you? "Trying to control?..." That is **exactly** what you insist on doing. Pomeranz is in a different league, in a much more offensively-minded division, in a home park that is much less forgiving to pitchers with flyball tendencies, especially lefties. I expect his baseline performance to be different. THAT is logic. I don't see his last 4 starts as the major indicative of his ability to perform in the AL any more than I do the first three. There is insufficient data for me to believe that he will continue to pitch at #1 level. My initial statement was that he hadn't reproduced what he did in SD. Are you genuinely disputing that? I then said that **to me** four good starts does not establish a new baseline, any more than three bad ones does. It's a start, but it does not provide incontrovertible truth as you seem hell-bent on claiming. I'm forming an opinion based on facts. I'm more conservative about my expectations for Pomeranz than you. Why you seem to be incapable of respectful disagreement, I do not understand. If you throw out his first start when he went 13 days between starts, he has pitched 6 games 35 1\3 innings with a 2.71 ERA. He had a 2.47 ERA in NL. Sure seems he has reproduced what he was doing in SD to me. If your opinion is based off of facts I would like to see what facts your using. If you look at box scores for this season his last 6 starts look just like the ones he made in SD. I was saying we should trade for him weeks before DD did, so I'm a big fan and Pomeranz has done a lot better than I thought he would. I don't see an ACE but a very good 2/3 just like Porcello.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 25, 2016 14:41:28 GMT -5
You can't help but project, can you? "Trying to control?..." That is **exactly** what you insist on doing. Pomeranz is in a different league, in a much more offensively-minded division, in a home park that is much less forgiving to pitchers with flyball tendencies, especially lefties. I expect his baseline performance to be different. THAT is logic. I don't see his last 4 starts as the major indicative of his ability to perform in the AL any more than I do the first three. There is insufficient data for me to believe that he will continue to pitch at #1 level. My initial statement was that he hadn't reproduced what he did in SD. Are you genuinely disputing that? I then said that **to me** four good starts does not establish a new baseline, any more than three bad ones does. It's a start, but it does not provide incontrovertible truth as you seem hell-bent on claiming. I'm forming an opinion based on facts. I'm more conservative about my expectations for Pomeranz than you. Why you seem to be incapable of respectful disagreement, I do not understand. If you throw out his first start when he went 13 days between starts, he has pitched 6 games 35 1\3 innings with a 2.71 ERA. He had a 2.47 ERA in NL. Sure seems he has reproduced what he was doing in SD to me. If your opinion is based off of facts I would like to see what facts your using. If you look at box scores for this season his last 6 starts look just like the ones he made in SD. I was saying we should trade for him weeks before DD did, so I'm a big fan and Pomeranz has done a lot better than I thought he would. I don't see an ACE but a very good 2/3 just like Porcello. All valid points. I, too, advocated for acquiring him. I don't like the cost, but I think the indications are good that he settles in as a #2-range guy.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 26, 2016 9:14:01 GMT -5
Red Sox Stats @redsoxstats 19h19 hours ago 22 swings and misses for Pomeranz, ties John Lackey for 2nd most (2013), Buchholz's 23 is the most (2010).
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 26, 2016 9:29:50 GMT -5
If you throw out his first start when he went 13 days between starts, he has pitched 6 games 35 1\3 innings with a 2.71 ERA. He had a 2.47 ERA in NL. Sure seems he has reproduced what he was doing in SD to me. If your opinion is based off of facts I would like to see what facts your using. If you look at box scores for this season his last 6 starts look just like the ones he made in SD. I was saying we should trade for him weeks before DD did, so I'm a big fan and Pomeranz has done a lot better than I thought he would. I don't see an ACE but a very good 2/3 just like Porcello. All valid points. I, too, advocated for acquiring him. I don't like the cost, but I think the indications are good that he settles in as a #2-range guy. Arthur Fonzarelli, it's okay to say you were wr wr wr wrong. We all are alot of the time. "He's not reproducing his SD performance, but I don't think that's remotely unexpected. He has been #3 quality" "But a 4-start stretch hardly establishes a baseline. " We'll that 5 and 6 overall out of 8. Those 6 fall right in light with his SD performance as was noted by a few others If in fact the 4 game stretch reproduced his season baseline and you claim otherwise then it has to be based on a 3 game stretch which was immediately after being traded the first of which was after 13 days of not pitching and being traded to a new team,catcher and a place to dwell and the second one was, actually a good game (6IP 2 ER WHIP 1.00 7K) then your assertion of "He has been #3 quality" must be based on 1 start, 2 if you think judging a pitcher after not having pitched in 13 AND being traded is worthy. So your assumption is based on facts that rest on 2 start out of 7 out of 25. Which were the outliers here? These are all facts. The facts include you moving your field goal from #3 to #2. Which is an admission in an of itself as someone who on some level knows they lost one but does not want to admit it. It's okay Fonzi, in the end you may still be right, just not now.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 26, 2016 10:55:30 GMT -5
All valid points. I, too, advocated for acquiring him. I don't like the cost, but I think the indications are good that he settles in as a #2-range guy. Arthur Fonzarelli, it's okay to say you were wr wr wr wrong. We all are alot of the time. "He's not reproducing his SD performance, but I don't think that's remotely unexpected. He has been #3 quality" "But a 4-start stretch hardly establishes a baseline. " We'll that 5 and 6 overall out of 8. Those 6 fall right in light with his SD performance as was noted by a few others If in fact the 4 game stretch reproduced his season baseline and you claim otherwise then it has to be based on a 3 game stretch which was immediately after being traded the first of which was after 13 days of not pitching and being traded to a new team,catcher and a place to dwell and the second one was, actually a good game (6IP 2 ER WHIP 1.00 7K) then your assertion of "He has been #3 quality" must be based on 1 start, 2 if you think judging a pitcher after not having pitched in 13 AND being traded is worthy. So your assumption is based on facts that rest on 2 start out of 7 out of 25. Which were the outliers here? These are all facts. The facts include you moving your field goal from #3 to #2. Which is an admission in an of itself as someone who on some level knows they lost one but does not want to admit it. It's okay Fonzi, in the end you may still be right, just not now. You have been warned once privately and twice publicly (in this very thread) about antagonizing and insulting other posters. Consider this your final warning. Cut out the personal stuff, both in this thread and elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 26, 2016 10:57:49 GMT -5
You can't help but project, can you? "Trying to control?..." That is **exactly** what you insist on doing. Pomeranz is in a different league, in a much more offensively-minded division, in a home park that is much less forgiving to pitchers with flyball tendencies, especially lefties. I expect his baseline performance to be different. THAT is logic. I don't see his last 4 starts as the major indicative of his ability to perform in the AL any more than I do the first three. There is insufficient data for me to believe that he will continue to pitch at #1 level. My initial statement was that he hadn't reproduced what he did in SD. Are you genuinely disputing that? I then said that **to me** four good starts does not establish a new baseline, any more than three bad ones does. It's a start, but it does not provide incontrovertible truth as you seem hell-bent on claiming. I'm forming an opinion based on facts. I'm more conservative about my expectations for Pomeranz than you. Why you seem to be incapable of respectful disagreement, I do not understand. If you throw out his first start when he went 13 days between starts, he has pitched 6 games 35 1\3 innings with a 2.71 ERA. He had a 2.47 ERA in NL. Sure seems he has reproduced what he was doing in SD to me. If your opinion is based off of facts I would like to see what facts your using. If you look at box scores for this season his last 6 starts look just like the ones he made in SD. I was saying we should trade for him weeks before DD did, so I'm a big fan and Pomeranz has done a lot better than I thought he would. I don't see an ACE but a very good 2/3 just like Porcello. The facts I referred to, btw, are the total data set of all of his time in Boston. He's pitched like a 3. If you selectively remove data, you can change that, but the results are what they are. He also hasn't reproduced what he did in SD, again, unless you selectively remove starts. I think your points are valid because you can argue the predictive usefulness of his whole Boston experience, but the data are what they are. m.bbref.com/m?p=XXplayersXXpXXpomerdr01.shtmlThe fact that there's a viable, rational reason to explain his early poor performance, and that he's pitched much more closely to his half-season in SD, is why I'm equally (maybe even more) optimistic about his prospects going forward. Last night was another step in a positive direction.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 20, 2016 14:44:29 GMT -5
From yesterdays 108 stiches
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 20, 2016 14:58:40 GMT -5
One of those is not like the other. It's a little hard to put yourself back in time and ignore the information we now know, but I would have preferred Sam Travis for Rich Hill to the Pomeranz deal. Then again, it probably would have taken more than Travis, and so maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 20, 2016 15:01:02 GMT -5
One of those is not like the other. It's a little hard to put yourself back in time and ignore the information we now know, but I would have preferred Sam Travis for Rich Hill to the Pomeranz deal. Then again, it probably would have taken more than Travis, and so maybe not. it says "built around" so I am 1000% positive that it would be a multi player package going to the A's
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 20, 2016 15:30:46 GMT -5
One of those is not like the other. It's a little hard to put yourself back in time and ignore the information we now know, but I would have preferred Sam Travis for Rich Hill to the Pomeranz deal. Then again, it probably would have taken more than Travis, and so maybe not. it says "built around" so I am 1000% positive that it would be a multi player package going to the A's Of course, but presumably Travis would be the headliner, and there aren't really that many prospects behind Travis that I'd be too upset about losing. Even if you throw in some of the likes of Basabe, Dubon, Chavis, Ockimey, etc., I'd probably still prefer that deal.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 20, 2016 17:05:56 GMT -5
This is the rare instance where I would have preferred a rental, because our top 4 prospects were so good and the drop off after them was so steep. Said it at the time too, so it's not hindsight (and never believed for a second the idea that the As demanded Espinoza for Hill which people grabbed onto to defend the Pomeranz deal).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 20, 2016 17:25:10 GMT -5
Couple of things, what about the reports that the A's were demanding AE? You can say you don't believe it, but it was all over the place when the Pomeranz deal was made. Also would Sox even make playoffs if they did the Hill deal? It's a very fair question, because when Hill was injured you would have had people like Owens and Sullivan starting games, which was the main reason to get Pomeranz. Third Hill's injury was a blessing for the Dodgers as he was able to rest his arm and didn't wear down like Pomeranz.
Sure in hindsight if you knew Sox would make playoffs getting Hill for Sam Travis plus would have been a lot better than trading AE. Then again everything looks better in hindsight.
|
|
|