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 Oct 20, 2016 18:14:21 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). So you are excepting that unclear vague view as a possible reality? You making a statement, does not alter anything because you are basing it on heresay.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 21, 2016 7:07:40 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. First, it wasn't "all over the place", there was literally one report that the As asked for Espinoza. Second, I didn't say I don't believe that report, I'm not being selective here. My point was that people like you ran with that and claimed that's what it would have actually taken to get Hill, which was ridiculous. Apparently they did ask for Espinoza and then ultimately backed down to a deal built around someone like Travis or Kopech, which is exactly what I said at the time. There's no hindsight involved here (other than everything you just said about Hill, ironically). If we had taken a poll at the time, giving up Travis and a lesser prospect for Hill (blisters and all) or AE for Pomeranz, what do you think the results would have been? 90-10?
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Oct 21, 2016 8:50:18 GMT -5
They would've made the playoffs without Pomeranz.
|
|
Smittyw
Veteran
Posts: 1,288
Member is Online
|
Post by Smittyw on Oct 21, 2016 15:36:10 GMT -5
Wasn't there a report that Arizona initially asked for Espinoza in the Ziegler trade, too? Lol.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 21, 2016 17:42:37 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. First, it wasn't "all over the place", there was literally one report that the As asked for Espinoza. Second, I didn't say I don't believe that report, I'm not being selective here. My point was that people like you ran with that and claimed that's what it would have actually taken to get Hill, which was ridiculous. Apparently they did ask for Espinoza and then ultimately backed down to a deal built around someone like Travis or Kopech, which is exactly what I said at the time. There's no hindsight involved here (other than everything you just said about Hill, ironically). If we had taken a poll at the time, giving up Travis and a lesser prospect for Hill (blisters and all) or AE for Pomeranz, what do you think the results would have been? 90-10? You said "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). " You said just that you never believed the A's demanded AE. Just a guess from what I got it sure seemed like the A's demanded AE and I think when Sox were going after Pomeranz, A's then lowered their price. At that point Sox were deep into talks with Padres and went with that deal. The other thing that I find funny is that the A's wanted a deal built around Swihart, Kopech or Travis. Well the value of Swihart and Kopech is like twice that of Travis at the time of the trade. So sure everyone runs with I would have gladly traded Travis. Not sure I really believe that report as the players values are way different. I have to think it was Swihart and/or Kopech and something small or Travis and a bunch more ( like 2-3 good prospect more). So i don't buy the Travis and something lesser idea one bit. I really like Travis but he was having a good not great year(and was injured) and Kopech came out throwing a hundred plus just dominating people, after a very good year the year before and Swihart is an ex top 10 prospect that has proven he can hit in majors.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 21, 2016 17:46:42 GMT -5
They would've made the playoffs without Pomeranz. How can you know that? 4 games was the difference from making it and not making it. Besides what Pomeranz did on field team got a lift from getting an all star. You get Hill and he's injured the team gets no such infusion. You will never no one way or another, so claiming they would is silly. There was a real chance they might not have, you just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2016 18:11:56 GMT -5
How did the team get an "infusion" when they traded for Pomeranz? They basically treaded water with him. They only took off with two weeks or so to go when they won 11 in a row and Pomeranz had absolutely nothing to do with it.
And I'm tired of hearing the All-Star thing. He had a great first half. Can't take anything away from that, but he was still a guy with a largely unproven track record, a guy who was a question mark, especially with the concern about his workload, and now especially with what the Padres were hiding from the Red Sox.
I get Manfred's decision and why the Red Sox refused to rescind the deal, although I think they will regret that decision heavily.
Given that the Red Sox were well past the deadline, I think Manfred should have allowed the Sox to take Espinoza back, keep Pomeranz for the rest of the season as a punishment to the Padres for deceiving the Red Sox, and then the Sox after the season should have had the option of keeping Pomeranz, in which case they'd resend Espinoza, or canceling the deal altogether, as they'd have more options to choose from in the winter (maybe by New Year's Day), something they didn't have in August.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Oct 21, 2016 23:06:24 GMT -5
They would've made the playoffs without Pomeranz. How can you know that? 4 games was the difference from making it and not making it. Besides what Pomeranz did on field team got a lift from getting an all star. You get Hill and he's injured the team gets no such infusion. You will never no one way or another, so claiming they would is silly. There was a real chance they might not have, you just don't know. There were four quality start by Pomeranz in which his team won, none against Toronto or Baltimore. So the only way you get a three-way tie is if you assume his replacement would've pitched poorly all four of those outings.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 22, 2016 1:28:02 GMT -5
They would've made the playoffs without Pomeranz. How can you know that? 4 games was the difference from making it and not making it. Besides what Pomeranz did on field team got a lift from getting an all star. You get Hill and he's injured the team gets no such infusion. You will never no one way or another, so claiming they would is silly. There was a real chance they might not have, you just don't know. It's almost certain that they win the division without Pomeranz. His replacement would have had to be 12 WAR / season worse in order to cost you the division. Henry Owens is much better than that. However, the only reason this is true is that John Farrell stopped doing idiotic things with his pitcher management. Had he managed the whole year the way he managed in September (when they had positive Win Efficiency / karma), they would have never needed to make the trade in the first place. And there was no way to predict that turnaround.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 23, 2016 8:54:33 GMT -5
I never liked this trade but if we are being fair:
1. He was arguably the best pitcher for the team in the playoffs even with the bad pitch to Coco.
2. Espinoza wasn't very good this year either in Boston or San Diego so don't write him in as the next Ace over there just yet.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 23, 2016 14:01:25 GMT -5
In a recent interview (Globe?) DDo implicitly compared Pomeranz to Scherzer and his other elite pitching finds. He talked about the fact that you can't afford the asking price in talent once guys prove how good they are, so you essentially have to trade for guys who haven't yet proven themselves, if you think they're for real.
He didn't say anything about what aspects of Pomeranz's game made him believe he was for real, but I have to think they were there. And I really like his statistical profile. I still think the odds are very good (60%?) that we'll get two top-of-rotation, in-the-argument-for-game-1-starter years from him.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 23, 2016 16:12:05 GMT -5
First, it wasn't "all over the place", there was literally one report that the As asked for Espinoza. Second, I didn't say I don't believe that report, I'm not being selective here. My point was that people like you ran with that and claimed that's what it would have actually taken to get Hill, which was ridiculous. Apparently they did ask for Espinoza and then ultimately backed down to a deal built around someone like Travis or Kopech, which is exactly what I said at the time. There's no hindsight involved here (other than everything you just said about Hill, ironically). If we had taken a poll at the time, giving up Travis and a lesser prospect for Hill (blisters and all) or AE for Pomeranz, what do you think the results would have been? 90-10? You said "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). " You said just that you never believed the A's demanded AE. Just a guess from what I got it sure seemed like the A's demanded AE and I think when Sox were going after Pomeranz, A's then lowered their price. At that point Sox were deep into talks with Padres and went with that deal. The other thing that I find funny is that the A's wanted a deal built around Swihart, Kopech or Travis. Well the value of Swihart and Kopech is like twice that of Travis at the time of the trade. So sure everyone runs with I would have gladly traded Travis. Not sure I really believe that report as the players values are way different. I have to think it was Swihart and/or Kopech and something small or Travis and a bunch more ( like 2-3 good prospect more). So i don't buy the Travis and something lesser idea one bit. I really like Travis but he was having a good not great year(and was injured) and Kopech came out throwing a hundred plus just dominating people, after a very good year the year before and Swihart is an ex top 10 prospect that has proven he can hit in majors. There's a difference between "demanding," (i.e., agree or no deal), and "asking for." That's the distinction he's making.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 23, 2016 18:32:10 GMT -5
In a recent interview (Globe?) DDo implicitly compared Pomeranz to Scherzer and his other elite pitching finds. He talked about the fact that you can't afford the asking price in talent once guys prove how good they are, so you essentially have to trade for guys who haven't yet proven themselves, if you think they're for real. He didn't say anything about what aspects of Pomeranz's game made him believe he was for real, but I have to think they were there. And I really like his statistical profile. I still think the odds are very good (60%?) that we'll get two top-of-rotation, in-the-argument-for-game-1-starter years from him. We didn't see him throw his cutter much with the Red Sox, but if he did, he'd remind me quite a bit of Lester. Now if he cuts his walks down to the low two's like Lester did, he could be right there with him.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 14:25:37 GMT -5
How did the team get an "infusion" when they traded for Pomeranz? They basically treaded water with him. They only took off with two weeks or so to go when they won 11 in a row and Pomeranz had absolutely nothing to do with it. And I'm tired of hearing the All-Star thing. He had a great first half. Can't take anything away from that, but he was still a guy with a largely unproven track record, a guy who was a question mark, especially with the concern about his workload, and now especially with what the Padres were hiding from the Red Sox. I get Manfred's decision and why the Red Sox refused to rescind the deal, although I think they will regret that decision heavily. Given that the Red Sox were well past the deadline, I think Manfred should have allowed the Sox to take Espinoza back, keep Pomeranz for the rest of the season as a punishment to the Padres for deceiving the Red Sox, and then the Sox after the season should have had the option of keeping Pomeranz, in which case they'd resend Espinoza, or canceling the deal altogether, as they'd have more options to choose from in the winter (maybe by New Year's Day), something they didn't have in August. From the players when they were interviewed after trade. They were giddy, team just went out and got an all star. Management showed players they believed they could make a run!
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 14:29:16 GMT -5
How can you know that? 4 games was the difference from making it and not making it. Besides what Pomeranz did on field team got a lift from getting an all star. You get Hill and he's injured the team gets no such infusion. You will never no one way or another, so claiming they would is silly. There was a real chance they might not have, you just don't know. There were four quality start by Pomeranz in which his team won, none against Toronto or Baltimore. So the only way you get a three-way tie is if you assume his replacement would've pitched poorly all four of those outings. You overlook the effect on the bullpen if his replacement only goes a couple innings in a bunch of starts. It could have had a ripple effect.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 14:42:02 GMT -5
You said "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). " You said just that you never believed the A's demanded AE. Just a guess from what I got it sure seemed like the A's demanded AE and I think when Sox were going after Pomeranz, A's then lowered their price. At that point Sox were deep into talks with Padres and went with that deal. The other thing that I find funny is that the A's wanted a deal built around Swihart, Kopech or Travis. Well the value of Swihart and Kopech is like twice that of Travis at the time of the trade. So sure everyone runs with I would have gladly traded Travis. Not sure I really believe that report as the players values are way different. I have to think it was Swihart and/or Kopech and something small or Travis and a bunch more ( like 2-3 good prospect more). So i don't buy the Travis and something lesser idea one bit. I really like Travis but he was having a good not great year(and was injured) and Kopech came out throwing a hundred plus just dominating people, after a very good year the year before and Swihart is an ex top 10 prospect that has proven he can hit in majors. There's a difference between "demanding," (i.e., agree or no deal), and "asking for." That's the distinction he's making. All reports showed they demanded Espinoza. It's not clear when, but they then backed off that at some point according to new reports. Just because they lowered there price over time doesn't mean they didn't demand Espinoza at the start. Like I said before I believe Beane didn't lower his price till Sox were in talks with Padres and he knew he had no choice put to lower his price or lose the team I'm sure he wanted to trade with because of the large amount of young talent we have.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 24, 2016 17:43:29 GMT -5
There's a difference between "demanding," (i.e., agree or no deal), and "asking for." That's the distinction he's making. All reports showed they demanded Espinoza. It's not clear when, but they then backed off that at some point according to new reports. Just because they lowered there price over time doesn't mean they didn't demand Espinoza at the start. Like I said before I believe Beane didn't lower his price till Sox were in talks with Padres and he knew he had no choice put to lower his price or lose the team I'm sure he wanted to trade with because of the large amount of young talent we have. But that's the point: they lowered the ask. So it wasn't a hard-and-fast "demand." Regardless, I think a trade for Hill or even a 5 like Hellickson would've been preferable to Pomeranz-Espinoza. Now that the season's over, we can definitively say that Pomeranz didn't reproduce his SD results. In fact, his numbers with the Sox were oddly similar to Owens's in 2015. I have hope that he'll be back to 2/3 caliber next year, and there's (significant) benefit to having that degree of depth certainty during the offseason. And the chance that he's a 1a/2 is real and decidedly non-zero, while the chance that Espinoza busts is very significant, historically (and the chance that he becomes a 1/1a/2 is much lower than for Pomeranz). But there were arguably (several) better value options to pursue at the time they made the deal. As you said, the Sox were dealing from a stronger position than might first be presumed, given their SP need.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 18:38:16 GMT -5
All reports showed they demanded Espinoza. It's not clear when, but they then backed off that at some point according to new reports. Just because they lowered there price over time doesn't mean they didn't demand Espinoza at the start. Like I said before I believe Beane didn't lower his price till Sox were in talks with Padres and he knew he had no choice put to lower his price or lose the team I'm sure he wanted to trade with because of the large amount of young talent we have. But that's the point: they lowered the ask. So it wasn't a hard-and-fast "demand." Regardless, I think a trade for Hill or even a 5 like Hellickson would've been preferable to Pomeranz-Espinoza. Now that the season's over, we can definitively say that Pomeranz didn't reproduce his SD results. In fact, his numbers with the Sox were oddly similar to Owens's in 2015. I have hope that he'll be back to 2/3 caliber next year, and there's (significant) benefit to having that degree of depth certainty during the offseason. And the chance that he's a 1a/2 is real and decidedly non-zero, while the chance that Espinoza busts is very significant, historically (and the chance that he becomes a 1/1a/2 is much lower than for Pomeranz). But there were arguably (several) better value options to pursue at the time they made the deal. As you said, the Sox were dealing from a stronger position than might first be presumed, given their SP need. Like I said before just because they lowered price, doesn't mean they didn't demand Espinoza. I truly believe that DD going after Pomeranz is what got A's to lower demands. I agree with the rest of what you said. Personally I wouldn't have made the trade, but can understand why DD did. I also like Pomeranz upside for the next two years.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2016 18:59:09 GMT -5
How did the team get an "infusion" when they traded for Pomeranz? They basically treaded water with him. They only took off with two weeks or so to go when they won 11 in a row and Pomeranz had absolutely nothing to do with it. And I'm tired of hearing the All-Star thing. He had a great first half. Can't take anything away from that, but he was still a guy with a largely unproven track record, a guy who was a question mark, especially with the concern about his workload, and now especially with what the Padres were hiding from the Red Sox. I get Manfred's decision and why the Red Sox refused to rescind the deal, although I think they will regret that decision heavily. Given that the Red Sox were well past the deadline, I think Manfred should have allowed the Sox to take Espinoza back, keep Pomeranz for the rest of the season as a punishment to the Padres for deceiving the Red Sox, and then the Sox after the season should have had the option of keeping Pomeranz, in which case they'd resend Espinoza, or canceling the deal altogether, as they'd have more options to choose from in the winter (maybe by New Year's Day), something they didn't have in August. From the players when they were interviewed after trade. They were giddy, team just went out and got an all star. Management showed players they believed they could make a run! That still doesn't show how the team got an "infusion." They still played pretty much the same until they went on a hot streak toward the end of the season when Pomeranz wasn't really pitching for them. And honestly, what difference does it make if the players were "giddy"? I'm sure the 1990 team was thrilled to get relief help as it desperately needed relief help at the time? What do the players on the team care about the farm system? What did they care about Jeff Bagwell? He didn't mean anything to them or the 1990 team. Just because players like management backing them up with "Go for it now" types of deals doesn't mean that the deal should be done, and in this case I don't see where it heavily impacted the team that much. Look, I won't pretend that his presence was an improved presence to Henry Owens and his ilk, but that doesn't mean he was worth the price or even close to it. If Rich Hill could have been had for far less then the Sox should have made that deal. There's no way a rental of Rich Hill would have fetched the A's Anderson Espinoza regardless of their initial demands.
|
|
Smittyw
Veteran
Posts: 1,288
Member is Online
|
Post by Smittyw on Oct 24, 2016 19:08:14 GMT -5
Maybe we should do away with the front office and just conduct transactions by clubhouse vote.... Moncada, Benintendi, Devers, Kopech, etc. would probably all have been gone for rental players, but it would have been a heck of an "infusion."
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 24, 2016 20:03:09 GMT -5
From the players when they were interviewed after trade. They were giddy, team just went out and got an all star. Management showed players they believed they could make a run! That still doesn't show how the team got an "infusion." They still played pretty much the same until they went on a hot streak toward the end of the season when Pomeranz wasn't really pitching for them. And honestly, what difference does it make if the players were "giddy"? I'm sure the 1990 team was thrilled to get relief help as it desperately needed relief help at the time? What do the players on the team care about the farm system? What did they care about Jeff Bagwell? He didn't mean anything to them or the 1990 team. Just because players like management backing them up with "Go for it now" types of deals doesn't mean that the deal should be done, and in this case I don't see where it heavily impacted the team that much. Look, I won't pretend that his presence was an improved presence to Henry Owens and his ilk, but that doesn't mean he was worth the price or even close to it. If Rich Hill could have been had for far less then the Sox should have made that deal. There's no way a rental of Rich Hill would have fetched the A's Anderson Espinoza regardless of their initial demands. If you don't think adding a pitcher to help rotation was an infusion then I can't help explain that to you. At the time of trade the back end of our rotation was killing us. Players being giddy, what I meant by that is that it increased moral and that's always a good thing. Look I wouldn't have made the trade, as I'm not a scout and couldn't tell if Pomeranz was just having a career year or if he turned a corner. DD thinks he turned a corner, so I support the trade. His track record is very good at this type of trade. Also DD made this trade not just for this past season, but for the next two seasons. Rich Hill would have cost less in the end if reports are right, but he was so risky. He only made 6 starts for Dodgers if I remember right and was injured when we needed him the most. By the time he got healthy both ERod and Clay were both back to pitching well.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 24, 2016 20:34:35 GMT -5
That still doesn't show how the team got an "infusion." They still played pretty much the same until they went on a hot streak toward the end of the season when Pomeranz wasn't really pitching for them. And honestly, what difference does it make if the players were "giddy"? I'm sure the 1990 team was thrilled to get relief help as it desperately needed relief help at the time? What do the players on the team care about the farm system? What did they care about Jeff Bagwell? He didn't mean anything to them or the 1990 team. Just because players like management backing them up with "Go for it now" types of deals doesn't mean that the deal should be done, and in this case I don't see where it heavily impacted the team that much. Look, I won't pretend that his presence was an improved presence to Henry Owens and his ilk, but that doesn't mean he was worth the price or even close to it. If Rich Hill could have been had for far less then the Sox should have made that deal. There's no way a rental of Rich Hill would have fetched the A's Anderson Espinoza regardless of their initial demands. If you don't think adding a pitcher to help rotation was an infusion then I can't help explain that to you. At the time of trade the back end of our rotation was killing us. Players being giddy, what I meant by that is that it increased moral and that's always a good thing. Look I wouldn't have made the trade, as I'm not a scout and couldn't tell if Pomeranz was just having a career year or if he turned a corner. DD thinks he turned a corner, so I support the trade. His track record is very good at this type of trade. Also DD made this trade not just for this past season, but for the next two seasons. Rich Hill would have cost less in the end if reports are right, but he was so risky. He only made 6 starts for Dodgers if I remember right and was injured when we needed him the most. By the time he got healthy both ERod and Clay were both back to pitching well. I don't think it was that big an infusion, no. And the Red Sox didn't exactly play better until the end. You said DD thinks he turned a corner so you support the trade based on his track record. Nothing wrong with thinking that, but just because DD thinks he turned the corner and was worth Espinoza doesn't mean that I have to think that. And as far as the next two years go, I'm really concerned that he's going to spend the majority of those two years pitching injured or being on the DL. I think he's damaged goods. I also think Espinoza is going to wind up being a top of the rotation type pitcher, not as good as Urias, but a helluva lot better than Raudes, that's for sure. He has a ceiling Raudes doesn't have, and the scouts are extremely high on him. There are a lot of excellent pitching prospects yet Espinoza is toward the top. That says a lot for his natural ability and he's certainly young enough to improve his command and blossom. He's facing guys that are mostly older than him. His peripheral numbers are decent and his stuff is great. This kid is going to be an excellent pitcher. Meanwhile Pomeranz will be long gone with his greatest value (I believe) being that he didn't totally suck in a year that the Red Sox wound up with one of the most hollow division titles in their history.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Oct 26, 2016 11:20:47 GMT -5
I mourn the loss of AE and question the need and wisdom of the trade. However, having watched Pomz pitch (I live in soCal), we will likely have a well above average rotation in 2017 and beyond with Price, Porcello, Pomz, Wright, ERod, Buch and depth. Few teams will have a rotation as strong and complete. I am ok with that, especially with Kopech and Groome and several others getting ready.
SP looks to be a strength. Offense looks to be a strength. Defense looks to be a strength. RP is almost there. The Farm is still a strength, and with zero reason to trade away any more top prospects, we can look forward to the upcoming emergence of Moncada, Devers, Dubon, Kopech, etc.
AE is, unfortunately, gone and we may yet wish otherwise like Bagwell, Hanram, Rizzo, Lester and Rich Hill. Its all history now. For what it is worth, as someone who spent many, many, many decades saying "wait till next year", usually with more hope than confidence, I am looking forward to 2017 with well-considered confidence, and Pomeranz is a significant part of that..
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 20, 2016 4:07:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 20, 2016 10:17:12 GMT -5
I got to see Espinoza pitch last season (post trade) and his fastball was really flat. No life, no movement. His secondary stuff was average but wild at best.
Hitters saw the fastball a few times and then locked in on it and killed it.
Maybe dombrowski was onto something with this trade.
|
|
|