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
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 20, 2016 12:56:18 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. Human beings are incapable of detecting FB movement (especially vertical; armside run can be spotted if looked for, or if it's extreme). If a guy misses his location and gets hit hard, it looks as if there was no movement on the ball. When Bard came up and didn't have command his first few outings and got hit hard, everyone, I mean, everyone, said his FB was "flat" and "had no life" when in fact pitch/fx showed it to have exceptional movement. It wasn't too much later that he went on a stretch where he fanned half the batters he faced without walking anybody. I hope I get some sort of prize for the 100th time I say this on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 20, 2016 15:02:40 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. Human beings are incapable of detecting FB movement (especially vertical; armside run can be spotted if looked for, or if it's extreme). If a guy misses his location and gets hit hard, it looks as if there was no movement on the ball. When Bard came up and didn't have command his first few outings and got hit hard, everyone, I mean, everyone, said his FB was "flat" and "had no life" when in fact pitch/fx showed it to have exceptional movement. It wasn't too much later that he went on a stretch where he fanned half the batters he faced without walking anybody. I hope I get some sort of prize for the 100th time I say this on these boards. Bards career would also be a very short one as his command disappeared and his days of being elite were done. He went from elite to horrible. The thing with Espinoza is that he was said to have great command and if he did with his stuff he wouldn't be getting hit like he did. He had good walk numbers because everything was over the plate and getting hit. I still think he has great upside, but he's not even close to as advanced for his age as we were told. I believe this is what DD thinks. Prospect sites have overrated Espinoza because of upside, so DD took advantage of that. I mean DD knows young pitching, he got Fulmer while in Detroit, if he thought Espinoza was a sure fire ace, he wouldn't have traded him. There's a lot more risk with Espinoza then most people on this site want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 20, 2016 16:16:04 GMT -5
Human beings are incapable of detecting FB movement (especially vertical; armside run can be spotted if looked for, or if it's extreme). If a guy misses his location and gets hit hard, it looks as if there was no movement on the ball. When Bard came up and didn't have command his first few outings and got hit hard, everyone, I mean, everyone, said his FB was "flat" and "had no life" when in fact pitch/fx showed it to have exceptional movement. It wasn't too much later that he went on a stretch where he fanned half the batters he faced without walking anybody. I hope I get some sort of prize for the 100th time I say this on these boards. Bards career would also be a very short one as his command disappeared and his days of being elite were done. He went from elite to horrible. Bard had thoracic outlet syndrome so I wouldn't really consider his career path indicative of anything other than that thoracic outlet is really awful.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,963
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 20, 2016 16:25:46 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. Human beings are incapable of detecting FB movement (especially vertical; armside run can be spotted if looked for, or if it's extreme). If a guy misses his location and gets hit hard, it looks as if there was no movement on the ball. [...] I don't get this. I know that a batter trying to track a ball thrown *at* him cannot track the last few feet, but what evidence is there that a person watching a pitch from the side or on tv cannot see movement or flatness? What are scouts doing when they say someone's FB is flat? or, what am I watching in this video?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 20, 2016 16:49:55 GMT -5
Human beings are incapable of detecting FB movement (especially vertical; armside run can be spotted if looked for, or if it's extreme). If a guy misses his location and gets hit hard, it looks as if there was no movement on the ball. [...] I don't get this. I know that a batter trying to track a ball thrown *at* him cannot track the last few feet, but what evidence is there that a person watching a pitch from the side or on tv cannot see movement or flatness? What are scouts doing when they say someone's FB is flat? or, what am I watching in this video? Armside run. Fastball rise looks like what you see from Kershaw or Koji, a fastball that looks pin-straight and hittable, but guys just don't square up. It's not really perceptible but the fastball just comes in a few inches higher than it "should", and guys get under it.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 20, 2016 17:13:46 GMT -5
Human beings are incapable of detecting FB movement (especially vertical; armside run can be spotted if looked for, or if it's extreme). If a guy misses his location and gets hit hard, it looks as if there was no movement on the ball. When Bard came up and didn't have command his first few outings and got hit hard, everyone, I mean, everyone, said his FB was "flat" and "had no life" when in fact pitch/fx showed it to have exceptional movement. It wasn't too much later that he went on a stretch where he fanned half the batters he faced without walking anybody. I hope I get some sort of prize for the 100th time I say this on these boards. Bards career would also be a very short one as his command disappeared and his days of being elite were done. He went from elite to horrible. The thing with Espinoza is that he was said to have great command and if he did with his stuff he wouldn't be getting hit like he did. He had good walk numbers because everything was over the plate and getting hit. I still think he has great upside, but he's not even close to as advanced for his age as we were told. I believe this is what DD thinks. Prospect sites have overrated Espinoza because of upside, so DD took advantage of that. I mean DD knows young pitching, he got Fulmer while in Detroit, if he thought Espinoza was a sure fire ace, he wouldn't have traded him. There's a lot more risk with Espinoza then most people on this site want to believe. Wait a minute, the guy was the youngest player in the league. Most guys his age aren't competing at that level. He held his own considering that the average aged batter was probably a few years older than he was. The kid had a 100-35 K/BB ratio in 108.1 IP, which is damn good for an 18 year old at that level. If pitching in full season A ball at age 18 isn't advanced, what is? Most kids his age are still in high school, pitching at Lowell, or the GCL or DSL. I mean does he have to be Dwight Gooden, circa 1984, to rate as pretty damned advanced? He carries risk but I'd definitely rather take the risk on Espinoza than the risk that Pomeranz can make it through the next two seasons as a rotation workhorse who pitches like a top of the rotation starter. I think Pomeranz is more likely to wind up on the DL or pitch so-so (needs to give up a lot less homers) for the two and a fraction seasons the Sox have him. The guy they got for Espinoza shouldn't be carrying so much risk himself. I'd rather take on Espinoza's risk, especially since they would have gotten six years of him and with his abilities, I'd take my chances that Espinoza winds up a top of the rotation starter than Pomeranz ever does for the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 20, 2016 18:51:24 GMT -5
Bards career would also be a very short one as his command disappeared and his days of being elite were done. He went from elite to horrible. The thing with Espinoza is that he was said to have great command and if he did with his stuff he wouldn't be getting hit like he did. He had good walk numbers because everything was over the plate and getting hit. I still think he has great upside, but he's not even close to as advanced for his age as we were told. I believe this is what DD thinks. Prospect sites have overrated Espinoza because of upside, so DD took advantage of that. I mean DD knows young pitching, he got Fulmer while in Detroit, if he thought Espinoza was a sure fire ace, he wouldn't have traded him. There's a lot more risk with Espinoza then most people on this site want to believe. Wait a minute, the guy was the youngest player in the league. Most guys his age aren't competing at that level. He held his own considering that the average aged batter was probably a few years older than he was. The kid had a 100-35 K/BB ratio in 108.1 IP, which is damn good for an 18 year old at that level. If pitching in full season A ball at age 18 isn't advanced, what is? Most kids his age are still in high school, pitching at Lowell, or the GCL or DSL. I mean does he have to be Dwight Gooden, circa 1984, to rate as pretty damned advanced? He carries risk but I'd definitely rather take the risk on Espinoza than the risk that Pomeranz can make it through the next two seasons as a rotation workhorse who pitches like a top of the rotation starter. I think Pomeranz is more likely to wind up on the DL or pitch so-so (needs to give up a lot less homers) for the two and a fraction seasons the Sox have him. The guy they got for Espinoza shouldn't be carrying so much risk himself. I'd rather take on Espinoza's risk, especially since they would have gotten six years of him and with his abilities, I'd take my chances that Espinoza winds up a top of the rotation starter than Pomeranz ever does for the Red Sox. Raudes was a month and a half older, a guy seen as back end starter posted 104 -23 k/BB ratio in 113.1 innings in the same league. Sure for a regular player he would have had a good year, but not for a guy called a top 5 pitching prospect in all of baseball. Go look at the numbers of Julio Urias a guy that everyone compared Espinoza to, they aren't even close. Urias dominated and Espinoza didn't. Also don't give me the batters he faced were older, 80 to 90% of those guys won't even come close to big leagues. Urias was 19 and pitching in majors. Saying he had a good season in low A ball when he was touted as a guy that comes around once a decade or two is funny. Those super elite guys dominated the lower minors at very young ages. I expect a Urias type season and he didn't even come close. BTW Urias was 16 when he dominated low A! Before the season he was seen on Urias level, after the season it's clear he's not that advanced and will need a lot more time in minors. Still has great upside, but he's not as advanced for his age as people were saying.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 20, 2016 20:32:16 GMT -5
Wait a minute, the guy was the youngest player in the league. Most guys his age aren't competing at that level. He held his own considering that the average aged batter was probably a few years older than he was. The kid had a 100-35 K/BB ratio in 108.1 IP, which is damn good for an 18 year old at that level. If pitching in full season A ball at age 18 isn't advanced, what is? Most kids his age are still in high school, pitching at Lowell, or the GCL or DSL. I mean does he have to be Dwight Gooden, circa 1984, to rate as pretty damned advanced? He carries risk but I'd definitely rather take the risk on Espinoza than the risk that Pomeranz can make it through the next two seasons as a rotation workhorse who pitches like a top of the rotation starter. I think Pomeranz is more likely to wind up on the DL or pitch so-so (needs to give up a lot less homers) for the two and a fraction seasons the Sox have him. The guy they got for Espinoza shouldn't be carrying so much risk himself. I'd rather take on Espinoza's risk, especially since they would have gotten six years of him and with his abilities, I'd take my chances that Espinoza winds up a top of the rotation starter than Pomeranz ever does for the Red Sox. Raudes was a month and a half older, a guy seen as back end starter posted 104 -23 k/BB ratio in 113.1 innings in the same league. Sure for a regular player he would have had a good year, but not for a guy called a top 5 pitching prospect in all of baseball. Go look at the numbers of Julio Urias a guy that everyone compared Espinoza to, they aren't even close. Urias dominated and Espinoza didn't. Also don't give me the batters he faced were older, 80 to 90% of those guys won't even come close to big leagues. Urias was 19 and pitching in majors. Saying he had a good season in low A ball when he was touted as a guy that comes around once a decade or two is funny. Those super elite guys dominated the lower minors at very young ages. I expect a Urias type season and he didn't even come close. BTW Urias was 16 when he dominated low A! Before the season he was seen on Urias level, after the season it's clear he's not that advanced and will need a lot more time in minors. Still has great upside, but he's not as advanced for his age as people were saying. And after the season did the scouting assessment of Raudes vs Espinoza change? No, Raudes is still considered back end and Espinoza is still considered a potential top of the rotation starter and one of the most highly touted pitching prospects in baseball. Urias is obviously a better prospect than Espinoza. He may not be generational talent, but as far as being a guy that comes around once a decade or two, for the Red Sox' purposes that's mostly true. I mean how many pitching prospects have they developed the past 30 years? There's Clemens. Andy Yount had an extremely high ceiling but he injured himself ending his career. Jon Lester had and reached his potential. Buchholz had a lot of potential that he never really lived up to. And the Sox finally have high hopes for Kopech and Groome. Over the past 30 years that's not many pitchers that have had that type of ceiling. Espinoza is as good as any of those names mentioned that aren't Roger Clemens. As it is, for all of his struggles, would it really be an awful thing if he was ready to step in and be a big contributor at age 21 or 22? That's still damn young and damn good. And don't you tell me that the age thing doesn't matter. That's bull. Every major league player has faced some guy at some point who winds up being a guy who doesn't wind up being close to the big leagues. So what's your point? You expected him to be knocking on the major league door at age 18? That's kind of crazy and extremely rare. He doesn't have to do that to be an incredible prospect who could have impacted the Red Sox rotation for years to come. Honestly if he were still with the Red Sox you'd be banging the drum about how great he is. I think you're being a homer here. You don't have to agree with every move the Red Sox make. That doesn't make you any less of a fan if you disagree with a move they make. But I still don't understand how you can trade Espinoza for a guy who is every bit as risky as Espinoza is. If you deal Espinoza it should be for a sure thing, not a guy who's pooped out at 150 innings pitched at age 27.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 20, 2016 22:22:45 GMT -5
Bards career would also be a very short one as his command disappeared and his days of being elite were done. He went from elite to horrible. Bard had thoracic outlet syndrome so I wouldn't really consider his career path indicative of anything other than that thoracic outlet is really awful. Matt Harvey agrees.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 21, 2016 1:01:20 GMT -5
Raudes was a month and a half older, a guy seen as back end starter posted 104 -23 k/BB ratio in 113.1 innings in the same league. Sure for a regular player he would have had a good year, but not for a guy called a top 5 pitching prospect in all of baseball. Go look at the numbers of Julio Urias a guy that everyone compared Espinoza to, they aren't even close. Urias dominated and Espinoza didn't. Also don't give me the batters he faced were older, 80 to 90% of those guys won't even come close to big leagues. Urias was 19 and pitching in majors. Saying he had a good season in low A ball when he was touted as a guy that comes around once a decade or two is funny. Those super elite guys dominated the lower minors at very young ages. I expect a Urias type season and he didn't even come close. BTW Urias was 16 when he dominated low A! Before the season he was seen on Urias level, after the season it's clear he's not that advanced and will need a lot more time in minors. Still has great upside, but he's not as advanced for his age as people were saying. And after the season did the scouting assessment of Raudes vs Espinoza change? No, Raudes is still considered back end and Espinoza is still considered a potential top of the rotation starter and one of the most highly touted pitching prospects in baseball. Urias is obviously a better prospect than Espinoza. He may not be generational talent, but as far as being a guy that comes around once a decade or two, for the Red Sox' purposes that's mostly true. I mean how many pitching prospects have they developed the past 30 years? There's Clemens. Andy Yount had an extremely high ceiling but he injured himself ending his career. Jon Lester had and reached his potential. Buchholz had a lot of potential that he never really lived up to. And the Sox finally have high hopes for Kopech and Groome. Over the past 30 years that's not many pitchers that have had that type of ceiling. Espinoza is as good as any of those names mentioned that aren't Roger Clemens. As it is, for all of his struggles, would it really be an awful thing if he was ready to step in and be a big contributor at age 21 or 22? That's still damn young and damn good. And don't you tell me that the age thing doesn't matter. That's bull. Every major league player has faced some guy at some point who winds up being a guy who doesn't wind up being close to the big leagues. So what's your point? You expected him to be knocking on the major league door at age 18? That's kind of crazy and extremely rare. He doesn't have to do that to be an incredible prospect who could have impacted the Red Sox rotation for years to come. Honestly if he were still with the Red Sox you'd be banging the drum about how great he is. I think you're being a homer here. You don't have to agree with every move the Red Sox make. That doesn't make you any less of a fan if you disagree with a move they make. But I still don't understand how you can trade Espinoza for a guy who is every bit as risky as Espinoza is. If you deal Espinoza it should be for a sure thing, not a guy who's pooped out at 150 innings pitched at age 27. Raudes has moved into our top 10 prospects by Baseball America, so yea it did change slightly. Go read the fangraph article about Espinoza. It clearly explains that prospect ranking sites can overrated prospect because of ceiling. If you don't think Espinoza trade value dropped after this year, your wrong. Sure he still has a high ceiling, but like i said everyone was comparing him to Urias before this year. That won't happen next year, he's not that advanced. See that's the thing before this season he was talked about being a generational talent, that's my whole point. He was suppose to be super advanced for his age, the type of guys that reaches the majors very young, well before almost everyone. He's not that advanced and almost no one on this site will admit this. That's being a Homer in my opinion. You think he'll be great because he has a great ceiling, so even if he doesn't dominate like everyone expected, it changes nothing. That line of thinking is crazy. Every single person on this board expected a Urias type season, a true dominating performance and we got a good season because he's 18. I'm in no way a Homer, I'm on record saying I wouldn't have made the trade and don't love it. But you can't overlook Espinoza performance either. Go look at my past post I thought Margot was highly overrated before he was traded and I was also on record saying Devers was being highly overrated by prospects sites before last year. Prospects having a high ceiling is great, but I'm a results guys, until they have great stats I'm not a believer. Upside is great, but so many players don't reach it. For me Espinoza needs to dominate to be called a top 5 pitching prospect in Baseball. Same thing with Devers, i love the upside, but until he truly had a great season i think his top 10 ratings are way to high. I truly hate when people say well at his age he did well, a l l the while rating him at the 7th best prospect in Baseball. That for me doesn't scream elite prospect. Betts dominated at a young age, Urias Dominated at a young age. The reason you get Pomeranz is that pitching prospects flame out at a very high rate, even ones as highly rated as Espinoza. If I remember right they fail about twice as much as positional players rated the same. DD is on record thinking Pomeranz is going to be very good going forward. He's not worried like you and he has a lot more information than you have. Also if we needed a starter right now we would be looking at trading a bunch of prospects for someone like Sale. Man I can't even think about how crazy it would be if we traded for Sale. You think losing Espinoza hurt, Sale would have cost 3-4 prospects close or equal to his level. This site would crash and we'd have a 300 page discussion on how DD ruined the Sox for generations and how those players were all future all stars and MVPs.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 21, 2016 8:10:55 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. Human beings are incapable of detecting FB movement (especially vertical; armside run can be spotted if looked for, or if it's extreme). If a guy misses his location and gets hit hard, it looks as if there was no movement on the ball. When Bard came up and didn't have command his first few outings and got hit hard, everyone, I mean, everyone, said his FB was "flat" and "had no life" when in fact pitch/fx showed it to have exceptional movement. It wasn't too much later that he went on a stretch where he fanned half the batters he faced without walking anybody. I hope I get some sort of prize for the 100th time I say this on these boards. This argument is all about spin rate. High spin rate fastballs have "late life" because they don't sink as much as average spin rate fastballs. So there really isn't any argument that can be made about a fastball being flat or lacking life or movement that can't be proven or disproven by PitchFX spin rate. People are so biased about pitchers depending on what the results are with the hitters.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 21, 2016 8:45:25 GMT -5
And after the season did the scouting assessment of Raudes vs Espinoza change? No, Raudes is still considered back end and Espinoza is still considered a potential top of the rotation starter and one of the most highly touted pitching prospects in baseball. Urias is obviously a better prospect than Espinoza. He may not be generational talent, but as far as being a guy that comes around once a decade or two, for the Red Sox' purposes that's mostly true. I mean how many pitching prospects have they developed the past 30 years? There's Clemens. Andy Yount had an extremely high ceiling but he injured himself ending his career. Jon Lester had and reached his potential. Buchholz had a lot of potential that he never really lived up to. And the Sox finally have high hopes for Kopech and Groome. Over the past 30 years that's not many pitchers that have had that type of ceiling. Espinoza is as good as any of those names mentioned that aren't Roger Clemens. As it is, for all of his struggles, would it really be an awful thing if he was ready to step in and be a big contributor at age 21 or 22? That's still damn young and damn good. And don't you tell me that the age thing doesn't matter. That's bull. Every major league player has faced some guy at some point who winds up being a guy who doesn't wind up being close to the big leagues. So what's your point? You expected him to be knocking on the major league door at age 18? That's kind of crazy and extremely rare. He doesn't have to do that to be an incredible prospect who could have impacted the Red Sox rotation for years to come. Honestly if he were still with the Red Sox you'd be banging the drum about how great he is. I think you're being a homer here. You don't have to agree with every move the Red Sox make. That doesn't make you any less of a fan if you disagree with a move they make. But I still don't understand how you can trade Espinoza for a guy who is every bit as risky as Espinoza is. If you deal Espinoza it should be for a sure thing, not a guy who's pooped out at 150 innings pitched at age 27. Raudes has moved into our top 10 prospects by Baseball America, so yea it did change slightly. Go read the fangraph article about Espinoza. It clearly explains that prospect ranking sites can overrated prospect because of ceiling. If you don't think Espinoza trade value dropped after this year, your wrong. Sure he still has a high ceiling, but like i said everyone was comparing him to Urias before this year. That won't happen next year, he's not that advanced. See that's the thing before this season he was talked about being a generational talent, that's my whole point. He was suppose to be super advanced for his age, the type of guys that reaches the majors very young, well before almost everyone. He's not that advanced and almost no one on this site will admit this. That's being a Homer in my opinion. You think he'll be great because he has a great ceiling, so even if he doesn't dominate like everyone expected, it changes nothing. That line of thinking is crazy. Every single person on this board expected a Urias type season, a true dominating performance and we got a good season because he's 18. I'm in no way a Homer, I'm on record saying I wouldn't have made the trade and don't love it. But you can't overlook Espinoza performance either. Go look at my past post I thought Margot was highly overrated before he was traded and I was also on record saying Devers was being highly overrated by prospects sites before last year. Prospects having a high ceiling is great, but I'm a results guys, until they have great stats I'm not a believer. Upside is great, but so many players don't reach it. For me Espinoza needs to dominate to be called a top 5 pitching prospect in Baseball. Same thing with Devers, i love the upside, but until he truly had a great season i think his top 10 ratings are way to high. I truly hate when people say well at his age he did well, a l l the while rating him at the 7th best prospect in Baseball. That for me doesn't scream elite prospect. Betts dominated at a young age, Urias Dominated at a young age. The reason you get Pomeranz is that pitching prospects flame out at a very high rate, even ones as highly rated as Espinoza. If I remember right they fail about twice as much as positional players rated the same. DD is on record thinking Pomeranz is going to be very good going forward. He's not worried like you and he has a lot more information than you have. Also if we needed a starter right now we would be looking at trading a bunch of prospects for someone like Sale. Man I can't even think about how crazy it would be if we traded for Sale. You think losing Espinoza hurt, Sale would have cost 3-4 prospects close or equal to his level. This site would crash and we'd have a 300 page discussion on how DD ruined the Sox for generations and how those players were all future all stars and MVPs. Got you. You scout stat lines for results and that's all you go by. If that's the case you wouldn't believe a player is capable of blossoming until they actually blossom. The kid is 18 years old. He's hardly a finished product. I'm not expecting Fernando-mania or 1984 Dwight Gooden from this kid. I'd think this kid would have a chance to be up at 21 or 22 and develop into a top of the rotation starter within a few seasons, something I don't really expect from a guy like Pomeranz who's had one good half year in the majors as a starter. Pomeranz wasn't even around to be one of the three starters at the end of the year and he didn't really help them in the playoffs. I remember you didn't care for Margot. He'll be a good player, but he's not better than what they have so I was fine with dealing him. I'm sure you'd be fine with dealing Devers. I think he's going to blossom. I don't always think that way about players, but in the case of Devers and Espinoza I believe they're going to be excellent players. As far as Sale goes, unless it's a Sale/Eaton for JBJ/E-Rod type of deal I don't see a trade that really works for the Red Sox, and there's no way the ChiSox deal Sale without hitting a home run type of trade. I'd rather have kept Espinoza, had Buchholz as a #5 and tried to get another depth starter. Also I'd like to see Steven Wright not pinch-run next season.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 21, 2016 11:17:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by juanpena on Nov 21, 2016 12:31:05 GMT -5
When Bard came up and didn't have command his first few outings and got hit hard, everyone, I mean, everyone, said his FB was "flat" and "had no life" when in fact pitch/fx showed it to have exceptional movement. It wasn't too much later that he went on a stretch where he fanned half the batters he faced without walking anybody. I hope I get some sort of prize for the 100th time I say this on these boards. I don't remember anyone, much less everyone, saying that about Bard. And as for him getting hit hard in his first few outings, Bard's first 10 games in the majors: 12 IP, 8H, 1ER, 4 BB, 13K. By the time he finally had a rough outing in his 11th appearance, I think most people saw he could pitch in the majors.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 21, 2016 15:20:24 GMT -5
Raudes has moved into our top 10 prospects by Baseball America, so yea it did change slightly. Go read the fangraph article about Espinoza. It clearly explains that prospect ranking sites can overrated prospect because of ceiling. If you don't think Espinoza trade value dropped after this year, your wrong. Sure he still has a high ceiling, but like i said everyone was comparing him to Urias before this year. That won't happen next year, he's not that advanced. See that's the thing before this season he was talked about being a generational talent, that's my whole point. He was suppose to be super advanced for his age, the type of guys that reaches the majors very young, well before almost everyone. He's not that advanced and almost no one on this site will admit this. That's being a Homer in my opinion. You think he'll be great because he has a great ceiling, so even if he doesn't dominate like everyone expected, it changes nothing. That line of thinking is crazy. Every single person on this board expected a Urias type season, a true dominating performance and we got a good season because he's 18. I'm in no way a Homer, I'm on record saying I wouldn't have made the trade and don't love it. But you can't overlook Espinoza performance either. Go look at my past post I thought Margot was highly overrated before he was traded and I was also on record saying Devers was being highly overrated by prospects sites before last year. Prospects having a high ceiling is great, but I'm a results guys, until they have great stats I'm not a believer. Upside is great, but so many players don't reach it. For me Espinoza needs to dominate to be called a top 5 pitching prospect in Baseball. Same thing with Devers, i love the upside, but until he truly had a great season i think his top 10 ratings are way to high. I truly hate when people say well at his age he did well, a l l the while rating him at the 7th best prospect in Baseball. That for me doesn't scream elite prospect. Betts dominated at a young age, Urias Dominated at a young age. The reason you get Pomeranz is that pitching prospects flame out at a very high rate, even ones as highly rated as Espinoza. If I remember right they fail about twice as much as positional players rated the same. DD is on record thinking Pomeranz is going to be very good going forward. He's not worried like you and he has a lot more information than you have. Also if we needed a starter right now we would be looking at trading a bunch of prospects for someone like Sale. Man I can't even think about how crazy it would be if we traded for Sale. You think losing Espinoza hurt, Sale would have cost 3-4 prospects close or equal to his level. This site would crash and we'd have a 300 page discussion on how DD ruined the Sox for generations and how those players were all future all stars and MVPs. Got you. You scout stat lines for results and that's all you go by. If that's the case you wouldn't believe a player is capable of blossoming until they actually blossom. The kid is 18 years old. He's hardly a finished product. I'm not expecting Fernando-mania or 1984 Dwight Gooden from this kid. I'd think this kid would have a chance to be up at 21 or 22 and develop into a top of the rotation starter within a few seasons, something I don't really expect from a guy like Pomeranz who's had one good half year in the majors as a starter. Pomeranz wasn't even around to be one of the three starters at the end of the year and he didn't really help them in the playoffs. I remember you didn't care for Margot. He'll be a good player, but he's not better than what they have so I was fine with dealing him. I'm sure you'd be fine with dealing Devers. I think he's going to blossom. I don't always think that way about players, but in the case of Devers and Espinoza I believe they're going to be excellent players. As far as Sale goes, unless it's a Sale/Eaton for JBJ/E-Rod type of deal I don't see a trade that really works for the Red Sox, and there's no way the ChiSox deal Sale without hitting a home run type of trade. I'd rather have kept Espinoza, had Buchholz as a #5 and tried to get another depth starter. Also I'd like to see Steven Wright not pinch-run next season. I'm a guy that believes in stats and history, not hype and prospect rankings! Almost everyone on here thinks the chances that Espinoza is a TOR starter is really really high. Looking at the data of past players like him and what he has done so far, I would say he has a 25% chance of being a TOR starter, 50% chance of being a decent starter and some where around 60-75% chance of being a back end starter/ reliever. Heck those numbers might be a little high. I would like to see someone make the chase that he has a lot more than a 25% chance of being a TOR starter right now. Do I want to trade Devers? No, I think his ratings are high, I don't think he's the 7th best prospect in Baseball like Keith Law, but I still see him as a for sure top 50 guy, probably closer to top 30. I believe in Devers a lot more than Margot. We would have to get awesome value for Devers to trade him, I currently don't think he's an untouchable though, but he's getting close. We aren't trading for Sale now, my point was the Pomeranz deal was made so we didn't have to trade for a Sale. You might be ok with Clay, but I want to trade him! His up and down antics have worn me down over the years. If you wanna blame anyone for Sox losing Espinoza blame Clay, because his crap 3/4 of a season is why we had to make a trade.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 21, 2016 15:42:09 GMT -5
Looking at the data of past players like him and what he has done so far, I would say he has a 25% chance of being a TOR starter I've figured out the disconnect here. You're actually using that "TOR" abbreviation correctly and you're trying to say he has a 25% chance of starting for the Blue Jays. I think 1/4 of the league pitches for the Blue Jays at some point so that's probably accurate.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,963
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 21, 2016 19:36:23 GMT -5
When Bard came up and didn't have command his first few outings and got hit hard, everyone, I mean, everyone, said his FB was "flat" and "had no life" when in fact pitch/fx showed it to have exceptional movement. It wasn't too much later that he went on a stretch where he fanned half the batters he faced without walking anybody. I hope I get some sort of prize for the 100th time I say this on these boards. I don't remember anyone, much less everyone, saying that about Bard. And as for him getting hit hard in his first few outings, Bard's first 10 games in the majors: 12 IP, 8H, 1ER, 4 BB, 13K. By the time he finally had a rough outing in his 11th appearance, I think most people saw he could pitch in the majors. Human beings are incapable of detecting when they are remembering the past in a distorted way and forgetting things that contradict the argument they are trying to make. At least some human beings.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 21, 2016 21:53:15 GMT -5
Did Dombrowski have more information than the rest of us when he traded Devon Travis for Anthony Gose?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 22, 2016 0:05:20 GMT -5
Got you. You scout stat lines for results and that's all you go by. If that's the case you wouldn't believe a player is capable of blossoming until they actually blossom. The kid is 18 years old. He's hardly a finished product. I'm not expecting Fernando-mania or 1984 Dwight Gooden from this kid. I'd think this kid would have a chance to be up at 21 or 22 and develop into a top of the rotation starter within a few seasons, something I don't really expect from a guy like Pomeranz who's had one good half year in the majors as a starter. Pomeranz wasn't even around to be one of the three starters at the end of the year and he didn't really help them in the playoffs. I remember you didn't care for Margot. He'll be a good player, but he's not better than what they have so I was fine with dealing him. I'm sure you'd be fine with dealing Devers. I think he's going to blossom. I don't always think that way about players, but in the case of Devers and Espinoza I believe they're going to be excellent players. As far as Sale goes, unless it's a Sale/Eaton for JBJ/E-Rod type of deal I don't see a trade that really works for the Red Sox, and there's no way the ChiSox deal Sale without hitting a home run type of trade. I'd rather have kept Espinoza, had Buchholz as a #5 and tried to get another depth starter. Also I'd like to see Steven Wright not pinch-run next season. I'm a guy that believes in stats and history, not hype and prospect rankings! Almost everyone on here thinks the chances that Espinoza is a TOR starter is really really high. Looking at the data of past players like him and what he has done so far, I would say he has a 25% chance of being a TOR starter, 50% chance of being a decent starter and some where around 60-75% chance of being a back end starter/ reliever. Heck those numbers might be a little high. I would like to see someone make the chase that he has a lot more than a 25% chance of being a TOR starter right now. Do I want to trade Devers? No, I think his ratings are high, I don't think he's the 7th best prospect in Baseball like Keith Law, but I still see him as a for sure top 50 guy, probably closer to top 30. I believe in Devers a lot more than Margot. We would have to get awesome value for Devers to trade him, I currently don't think he's an untouchable though, but he's getting close. We aren't trading for Sale now, my point was the Pomeranz deal was made so we didn't have to trade for a Sale. You might be ok with Clay, but I want to trade him! His up and down antics have worn me down over the years. If you wanna blame anyone for Sox losing Espinoza blame Clay, because his crap 3/4 of a season is why we had to make a trade. You call it hype but I'd say there's a lot of consensus regarding Espinoza's potential and his ability to reach a good deal of it. You see a kid with so-so numbers and I see a kid at 18 years old at a level higher than he should be putting up a strong K/BB ratio with some terrible BABIP numbers going against him as others have pointed out. He's the kind of kid I'd gamble on to reach a good deal of his ceiling and if he does he'll be a helluva lot more valuable than the short-term return the Red Sox got. I do blame Clay to an extent and E-Rod's injury and certainly the pinch-running maneuver that backfired on the team with Wright's injury but if the team feels they have to make a detrimental trade, then they shouldn't do the deal. It reminds me of one trading deadline when Theo was talking about the price of milk being way too high and he refused to make a bad deal. This will be a shortsighted deal Dombrowski regrets. As it turned out Buchholz and E-Rod did get things together enough at the end, along with Price and Porcello to give the Red Sox four viable post-season starter options, although it ultimately didn't matter. I would have been very excited to see the trio of Espinoza, Kopech, and Groome making its way toward Fenway, the first trio of young starters since Clemens, Boyd, and Nipper to make its way to Boston. By time those guys are ready, Pomeranz should either be on the way out or gone. I was fine with dealing Margot away even though Kimbrel was a disappointment, but this particular deal was pretty bad. Honestly I'd rather the Sox had not made the deal and then tried to sign injury plagued Rich Hill as a free agent in the off-season.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Nov 22, 2016 8:46:58 GMT -5
I'm a guy that believes in stats and history, not hype and prospect rankings! Almost everyone on here thinks the chances that Espinoza is a TOR starter is really really high. Looking at the data of past players like him and what he has done so far, I would say he has a 25% chance of being a TOR starter, 50% chance of being a decent starter and some where around 60-75% chance of being a back end starter/ reliever. Heck those numbers might be a little high. I would like to see someone make the chase that he has a lot more than a 25% chance of being a TOR starter right now. Do I want to trade Devers? No, I think his ratings are high, I don't think he's the 7th best prospect in Baseball like Keith Law, but I still see him as a for sure top 50 guy, probably closer to top 30. I believe in Devers a lot more than Margot. We would have to get awesome value for Devers to trade him, I currently don't think he's an untouchable though, but he's getting close. We aren't trading for Sale now, my point was the Pomeranz deal was made so we didn't have to trade for a Sale. You might be ok with Clay, but I want to trade him! His up and down antics have worn me down over the years. If you wanna blame anyone for Sox losing Espinoza blame Clay, because his crap 3/4 of a season is why we had to make a trade. You call it hype but I'd say there's a lot of consensus regarding Espinoza's potential and his ability to reach a good deal of it. You see a kid with so-so numbers and I see a kid at 18 years old at a level higher than he should be putting up a strong K/BB ratio with some terrible BABIP numbers going against him as others have pointed out. He's the kind of kid I'd gamble on to reach a good deal of his ceiling and if he does he'll be a helluva lot more valuable than the short-term return the Red Sox got. I do blame Clay to an extent and E-Rod's injury and certainly the pinch-running maneuver that backfired on the team with Wright's injury but if the team feels they have to make a detrimental trade, then they shouldn't do the deal. It reminds me of one trading deadline when Theo was talking about the price of milk being way too high and he refused to make a bad deal. This will be a shortsighted deal Dombrowski regrets. As it turned out Buchholz and E-Rod did get things together enough at the end, along with Price and Porcello to give the Red Sox four viable post-season starter options, although it ultimately didn't matter. I would have been very excited to see the trio of Espinoza, Kopech, and Groome making its way toward Fenway, the first trio of young starters since Clemens, Boyd, and Nipper to make its way to Boston. By time those guys are ready, Pomeranz should either be on the way out or gone. I was fine with dealing Margot away even though Kimbrel was a disappointment, but this particular deal was pretty bad. Honestly I'd rather the Sox had not made the deal and then tried to sign injury plagued Rich Hill as a free agent in the off-season. I would substitute Bruce Hurst for Al Nipper and now we're talking. Yeah, I am one who loved Neo and his potential and was not happy with the acquisition of Pomeranz but I understood why it was done. Kopech, Neo and Groome would have made a nice TOR trio but would be tough to match Clemens, Hurst and Oil Can (when he was on for about 3 years). We really don't have anyone else to replace Neo's potential so keeping Kopech and Groome is a must unless we get a Sale or one of the kids from Cleveland (doubtful).
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 22, 2016 9:49:24 GMT -5
You call it hype but I'd say there's a lot of consensus regarding Espinoza's potential and his ability to reach a good deal of it. You see a kid with so-so numbers and I see a kid at 18 years old at a level higher than he should be putting up a strong K/BB ratio with some terrible BABIP numbers going against him as others have pointed out. He's the kind of kid I'd gamble on to reach a good deal of his ceiling and if he does he'll be a helluva lot more valuable than the short-term return the Red Sox got. I do blame Clay to an extent and E-Rod's injury and certainly the pinch-running maneuver that backfired on the team with Wright's injury but if the team feels they have to make a detrimental trade, then they shouldn't do the deal. It reminds me of one trading deadline when Theo was talking about the price of milk being way too high and he refused to make a bad deal. This will be a shortsighted deal Dombrowski regrets. As it turned out Buchholz and E-Rod did get things together enough at the end, along with Price and Porcello to give the Red Sox four viable post-season starter options, although it ultimately didn't matter. I would have been very excited to see the trio of Espinoza, Kopech, and Groome making its way toward Fenway, the first trio of young starters since Clemens, Boyd, and Nipper to make its way to Boston. By time those guys are ready, Pomeranz should either be on the way out or gone. I was fine with dealing Margot away even though Kimbrel was a disappointment, but this particular deal was pretty bad. Honestly I'd rather the Sox had not made the deal and then tried to sign injury plagued Rich Hill as a free agent in the off-season. I would substitute Bruce Hurst for Al Nipper and now we're talking. Yeah, I am one who loved Neo and his potential and was not happy with the acquisition of Pomeranz but I understood why it was done. Kopech, Neo and Groome would have made a nice TOR trio but would be tough to match Clemens, Hurst and Oil Can (when he was on for about 3 years). We really don't have anyone else to replace Neo's potential so keeping Kopech and Groome is a must unless we get a Sale or one of the kids from Cleveland (doubtful). Groome and kopech have to be untouchables.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 22, 2016 10:07:17 GMT -5
Did Dombrowski have more information than the rest of us when he traded Devon Travis for Anthony Gose? Pointing out mistakes does not prove your claim. Has he been right more than you? if not good god son apply for GM positions.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 22, 2016 10:31:41 GMT -5
You call it hype but I'd say there's a lot of consensus regarding Espinoza's potential and his ability to reach a good deal of it. You see a kid with so-so numbers and I see a kid at 18 years old at a level higher than he should be putting up a strong K/BB ratio with some terrible BABIP numbers going against him as others have pointed out. He's the kind of kid I'd gamble on to reach a good deal of his ceiling and if he does he'll be a helluva lot more valuable than the short-term return the Red Sox got. I do blame Clay to an extent and E-Rod's injury and certainly the pinch-running maneuver that backfired on the team with Wright's injury but if the team feels they have to make a detrimental trade, then they shouldn't do the deal. It reminds me of one trading deadline when Theo was talking about the price of milk being way too high and he refused to make a bad deal. This will be a shortsighted deal Dombrowski regrets. As it turned out Buchholz and E-Rod did get things together enough at the end, along with Price and Porcello to give the Red Sox four viable post-season starter options, although it ultimately didn't matter. I would have been very excited to see the trio of Espinoza, Kopech, and Groome making its way toward Fenway, the first trio of young starters since Clemens, Boyd, and Nipper to make its way to Boston. By time those guys are ready, Pomeranz should either be on the way out or gone. I was fine with dealing Margot away even though Kimbrel was a disappointment, but this particular deal was pretty bad. Honestly I'd rather the Sox had not made the deal and then tried to sign injury plagued Rich Hill as a free agent in the off-season. I would substitute Bruce Hurst for Al Nipper and now we're talking. Yeah, I am one who loved Neo and his potential and was not happy with the acquisition of Pomeranz but I understood why it was done. Kopech, Neo and Groome would have made a nice TOR trio but would be tough to match Clemens, Hurst and Oil Can (when he was on for about 3 years). We really don't have anyone else to replace Neo's potential so keeping Kopech and Groome is a must unless we get a Sale or one of the kids from Cleveland (doubtful). Yeah, Hurst (one of my favorites) would make most sense in that trio, but I excluded him because he was drafted way back in 1976 and had taken years to come into his own as opposed to succeeding right away the way Clemens, Boyd, and Nipper did (although Nipper was all smoke and mirrors as subsequent years would prove). But yeah, I outthought myself - I should have included Hurst - and Ojeda for that matter, too. In 1984 the Red Sox rotation once they dealt Eckersley for Buckner was Clemens/Boyd/Hurst/Ojeda/Nipper - 5 young guys developed through their farm system and they had just dealt away the best lefty of the three that offseason in John Tudor for Mike Easler to replace Yaz as the DH. Easler had an excellent 1984 but John Tudor was just coming into his own and he blossomed fully in 1985 with the Cards. But the Sox certainly had arms coming up during that stretch. Hopefully Kopech and Groome develop the way we hope they can Espinoza would have been outstanding to have, but that's not the case. Hopefully somebody like a Pennington can step up, too, and put things together. I do think Raudes has a legit shot at being a bottom of the rotation starter eventually or perhaps a good #4?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 22, 2016 11:47:28 GMT -5
I'm a guy that believes in stats and history, not hype and prospect rankings! Almost everyone on here thinks the chances that Espinoza is a TOR starter is really really high. Looking at the data of past players like him and what he has done so far, I would say he has a 25% chance of being a TOR starter, 50% chance of being a decent starter and some where around 60-75% chance of being a back end starter/ reliever. Heck those numbers might be a little high. I would like to see someone make the chase that he has a lot more than a 25% chance of being a TOR starter right now. Do I want to trade Devers? No, I think his ratings are high, I don't think he's the 7th best prospect in Baseball like Keith Law, but I still see him as a for sure top 50 guy, probably closer to top 30. I believe in Devers a lot more than Margot. We would have to get awesome value for Devers to trade him, I currently don't think he's an untouchable though, but he's getting close. We aren't trading for Sale now, my point was the Pomeranz deal was made so we didn't have to trade for a Sale. You might be ok with Clay, but I want to trade him! His up and down antics have worn me down over the years. If you wanna blame anyone for Sox losing Espinoza blame Clay, because his crap 3/4 of a season is why we had to make a trade. You call it hype but I'd say there's a lot of consensus regarding Espinoza's potential and his ability to reach a good deal of it. You see a kid with so-so numbers and I see a kid at 18 years old at a level higher than he should be putting up a strong K/BB ratio with some terrible BABIP numbers going against him as others have pointed out. He's the kind of kid I'd gamble on to reach a good deal of his ceiling and if he does he'll be a helluva lot more valuable than the short-term return the Red Sox got. I do blame Clay to an extent and E-Rod's injury and certainly the pinch-running maneuver that backfired on the team with Wright's injury but if the team feels they have to make a detrimental trade, then they shouldn't do the deal. It reminds me of one trading deadline when Theo was talking about the price of milk being way too high and he refused to make a bad deal. This will be a shortsighted deal Dombrowski regrets. As it turned out Buchholz and E-Rod did get things together enough at the end, along with Price and Porcello to give the Red Sox four viable post-season starter options, although it ultimately didn't matter. I would have been very excited to see the trio of Espinoza, Kopech, and Groome making its way toward Fenway, the first trio of young starters since Clemens, Boyd, and Nipper to make its way to Boston. By time those guys are ready, Pomeranz should either be on the way out or gone. I was fine with dealing Margot away even though Kimbrel was a disappointment, but this particular deal was pretty bad. Honestly I'd rather the Sox had not made the deal and then tried to sign injury plagued Rich Hill as a free agent in the off-season. There is a consensus of Espinoza potential, but in no way is there a consensus in his ability to reach it. You think that because everyone here thinks he will. Espinoza is way to young and way to far away for there to be a consensus that he'll come close to reaching his potential. You like him and you think he's a good bet to reach his ceiling, but your basing that on his hype and high prospect rankings. You can't be basing it off of good K/B ratio because if you did you love Raudes just as much. You don't like him as much, because he has no hype, a lower ceiling and prospect ranking. www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospectscamdendepot.blogspot.com/2013/12/death-to-tinstaapp-updating-mckinneys.html
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 22, 2016 11:55:51 GMT -5
He likes Espinoza better than Raudes because Espinoza has similar peripheral stats and significantly better stuff. That's not hype, no matter how many times you keep typing it. That's probably the most sensible way to regard prospects, actually. "Okay, we have two players, the same age, playing at the same level. They are statistically quite similar. Prospect A has significantly better stuff than Prospect B. I prefer prospect A."
You keep writing off everyone's well-reasoned arguments as hype, or ranking-following, or something. Stop it. Seriously. You can not be as high on the crowd as Espinoza, but you don't need to reply to every single post here with your same four talking points.
|
|
|