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.
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 11, 2017 8:49:29 GMT -5
Nope. But is Pomeranz? I was all for the Sale deal. Not so much the other two, esp when Sox were offered a do-over for Pomeranz. Also, so many people talk about guys like Travis and Groome like they are sure things - that was the intent of the caution/caveat. Yes Pomeranz is - he's in the pros. And last year he had a stretch in which we needed him most - I'm not sure we make the playoffs without him. If you recall the Red Sox bullpen was collapsing and he had several very good starts in a row.. Pomeranz helped us get into the playoffs. That performance made him "a sure thing" because last year "he was" during the stretch when we needed him badly.
I am not going to forget how terrific the Sox were near the end before the Kimbrel collapse. And Pomz was a part of that success.
Also as you previously brought up
"but make no mistake they've put a lot of eggs in this basket, including trading the likes of Espinosa, Kopech and Margot."
This makes it sound like Kopech and Espinosa are sure things. They aren't.
I just read things on here about how the Red Sox were going to be this dynasty. I say noooo -- our minor league pitching stunk other that low tier minor league ball. No prime starters were coming up soon. How long before Kopech and Espinosa would be number 1/2 starters - IF they even make it? We know we heard "he's Pedro . . . "
And then after the trade you hear how this pro team that they aren't;' that good. -- "They are tenuous at best" type of a comment while we are picked 2nd overall in the AL by Fangraphs? -- You can shake your head all you want about Travis and Groome.
I shake my head the other way and am a bit stunned of what I feel is over-exuberance of prospects while downplaying how good this team can be for the next several years. So I'm right back at ya with all the talk of dynasty and how you seem to put guys like Kopech and Espinoza on a pedestal.
Tell me that you don't think DD has the smarts to make some tough trades going forward - I'll yield somewhat.
Couple quick things: The point I apparently failed to make is that, yes, I agree with those that we are working on a significant 3-year window right now. Not to say 2020 is a looming disaster (it shouldn't be when a team has money), but if the Sox don't reach a World Series within that window, given the assets of prospects and cash that were invested in building the current team, it will likely be viewed as an organizational failure on some significant level. That said, I like Dombrowski a lot better than Cherington - a real lot - but much less than Epstein. In fact, I think two of the three biggest unforced errors by this ownership group in the last 7 years were: 1) Letting Theo go instead of buying-out/pushing-out Luchino - which happened a couple years later when the choice of embracing him and his petty advocacy was shown to be folly. 2) Letting Francona go, which was a product of the power-play that ultimately led to #1. Also, just because Pomeranz is a pro doesn't mean he's a sure thing or even what he was for part of last year. In fact he was seized upon during an outlier year, was damaged goods when acquired and the performance of a "All Star" pitcher who had until recently been more often a fifth or sixth starter type and a bullpen arm, did not merit the investment cost, IMHO. I am not saying - nor was I saying - that the Sox should've held onto Espinosa, or Margot, for that matter in the Kimbrel deal, because they were sure-fire stars. What I was saying is that it was in both cases a bad use of assets, especially when it was offered back when Pomeranz was found to be damaged. I contended then, and continue to believe, that Pomeranz was in an pure outlier year and his track record showed him to be an oft-injured starter who was likely ticked for the pen and who had benefited from some very large ballparks (Oak, SD). That kind of "innings eater, 5th starter" should've been found elsewhere at less cost. You keep - or take back Espinosa - and all his "incredibly advanced 18 year-old, future #1 starter" hype and that's one more big chip you have to potentially move in the off-season. Or let me put it this way: it's highly likely you still have one of him or Kopech today and Chris Sale, if you don't make or reverse the Pomeranz deal. Which brings me to my last point, which I must've also not clearly stated or implied - and I apologize again if this was the case: We're all enthusiastic about prospects here, and we all have favorites. But that doesn't mean that guys like Travis or Kopech or any of the others will be stars, or, in the case of Travis, even an MLB regular. Those who were making the argument that "we'll be fine in 2020 because we'll have Travis and Devers and Groome and whomever meeting or approaching their ceilings" are engaging in some extremely wishful thinking when viewed with the historic success rate of highly projected prospects who are at the lower levels. I was attempting to caution that attitude and to say that, with only 1-3 projected above average MLB players at their current positions right now (Devers, Groome and maybe Swihart if he stays at catcher), there is a lot less room for error with home-grown success after this window, barring some shrewd acquisitions. So, yeah, it's much more of a window in my view right now without significant augmentation of the roster during that 3-year window by making really, really great draft and international signings in the next 3 years and some smart trades and free agent acquisitions.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 11, 2017 8:59:40 GMT -5
So by that standard, any minor leaguers are just question marks and all major leaguers who help a team are worth more than that minor leaguer, right? Your argument is entirely based on players as types and not on their individual skills and values. What's funny is you're drawing this fake line between "sure thing" and "not a sure thing" but also treating it as a surety that Pomeranz put the Red Sox in the playoffs when they otherwise wouldn't have made it. They finished seven games ahead of the top non-playoff team and four games ahead of the wild card. Pomeranz was 3-5 with a 4.59 ERA in 13 starts. What happens if Owens or someone like him makes those 13 starts? You could have killed our already fragile bullpen and cost us a bunch of future games. Without the Pomeranz deal Buchholz doesn't go to pen to rediscover how to pitch and could have easily just remained one of the worst pitchers in Baseball. We will never know for sure, but Pomeranz had a bunch of domino effects that you are just over looking. In your honest opinion do you think Buchholz turns season around without going to bullpen? I sure don't.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 11, 2017 9:03:20 GMT -5
So by that standard, any minor leaguers are just question marks and all major leaguers who help a team are worth more than that minor leaguer, right? Your argument is entirely based on players as types and not on their individual skills and values. What's funny is you're drawing this fake line between "sure thing" and "not a sure thing" but also treating it as a surety that Pomeranz put the Red Sox in the playoffs when they otherwise wouldn't have made it. They finished seven games ahead of the top non-playoff team and four games ahead of the wild card. Pomeranz was 3-5 with a 4.59 ERA in 13 starts. What happens if Owens or someone like him makes those 13 starts? You could have killed our already fragile bullpen and cost us a bunch of future games. Without the Pomeranz deal Buchholz doesn't go to pen to rediscover how to pitch and could have easily just remained one of the worst pitchers in Baseball. We will never know for sure, but Pomeranz had a bunch of domino effects that you are just over looking. In your honest opinion do you think Buchholz turns season around without going to bullpen? I sure don't. I for one say yes, if only because he'd done it a few times before without going to the pen (and because his peripherals were as bad as the on-field results). He might've needed a phantom DL stint with the requisite "work to build arm strength (i.e. additional coaching/tinkering) and a few AAA rehab starts, but, yes, I think he pulls out of it. Again.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Apr 11, 2017 9:19:55 GMT -5
It's nigh time to consider Dombrowski's belated replacement. How about bringing Josh Byrnes back to Boston?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 11, 2017 10:14:22 GMT -5
If a team is so shallow that 13 starts of Drew Pomeranz produces a seven-win upgrade, then they aren't in a position to be trading Anderson Espinoza for Drew Pomeranz. That would reflect a team with such significant depth and management problems that trading a top prospect for a playoff push would be insane.
Of course, he wasn't seven wins above anything. If Drew Pomeranz was worth seven wins over those 13 starts over the actually available replacement, then what was Porcello worth? 50 wins? Come on. I actually like Pomeranz. But the idea that the 93 win Red Sox end up an 86 win team without his two months of starts because you start pointing your dominoes toward some worst-case disaster scenario just doesn't jibe with reality.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Apr 11, 2017 11:54:47 GMT -5
So Dave Dumbrowski tells Nesn that JBJ will not be on the DL and one hour later it gets announced that JBJ will be put on the DL. This guy is a clown.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 11, 2017 12:23:51 GMT -5
If a team is so shallow that 13 starts of Drew Pomeranz produces a seven-win upgrade, then they aren't in a position to be trading Anderson Espinoza for Drew Pomeranz. That would reflect a team with such significant depth and management problems that trading a top prospect for a playoff push would be insane. Of course, he wasn't seven wins above anything. If Drew Pomeranz was worth seven wins over those 13 starts over the actually available replacement, then what was Porcello worth? 50 wins? Come on. I actually like Pomeranz. But the idea that the 93 win Red Sox end up an 86 win team without his two months of starts because you start pointing your dominoes toward some worst-case disaster scenario just doesn't jibe with reality. Agreed. And let's all remember, before this aberrant, outlier year, Pomeranz was a 0.8 WAR pitcher. Nothing I'm ever trading a top 20 in MLB prospect for - ever.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Apr 11, 2017 12:36:21 GMT -5
I still don't understand why it was such a big deal to make the playoffs last year.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 11, 2017 13:13:46 GMT -5
So Dave Dumbrowski tells Nesn that JBJ will not be on the DL and one hour later it gets announced that JBJ will be put on the DL. This guy is a clown. This is a joke right? You are blaming him for this?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 11, 2017 13:58:30 GMT -5
What happens if Owens or someone like him makes those 13 starts? You could have killed our already fragile bullpen and cost us a bunch of future games. Without the Pomeranz deal Buchholz doesn't go to pen to rediscover how to pitch and could have easily just remained one of the worst pitchers in Baseball. We will never know for sure, but Pomeranz had a bunch of domino effects that you are just over looking. In your honest opinion do you think Buchholz turns season around without going to bullpen? I sure don't. I for one say yes, if only because he'd done it a few times before without going to the pen (and because his peripherals were as bad as the on-field results). He might've needed a phantom DL stint with the requisite "work to build arm strength (i.e. additional coaching/tinkering) and a few AAA rehab starts, but, yes, I think he pulls out of it. Again. If I remember right they had already done a phantom DL stint and it didn't work. So I'm not sure that a second one does it again. What we know is that the move to pen because they got Pomeranz made Buchholz a different pitcher for the last 1/3 of the season. In regards to Buchholz doing this before, when? When did he ever go 2/3 of a season being one of the worst starters to being a good starter for last 1/3 of season? He's had some stretches, but nothing like last year. Bucholz is the reason we don't have Espinoza anymore, plain and simple. He was so bad for the first 2/3 of the season that DD had to make a move.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 11, 2017 14:24:45 GMT -5
If a team is so shallow that 13 starts of Drew Pomeranz produces a seven-win upgrade, then they aren't in a position to be trading Anderson Espinoza for Drew Pomeranz. That would reflect a team with such significant depth and management problems that trading a top prospect for a playoff push would be insane. Of course, he wasn't seven wins above anything. If Drew Pomeranz was worth seven wins over those 13 starts over the actually available replacement, then what was Porcello worth? 50 wins? Come on. I actually like Pomeranz. But the idea that the 93 win Red Sox end up an 86 win team without his two months of starts because you start pointing your dominoes toward some worst-case disaster scenario just doesn't jibe with reality. You're 100% right they could have never lost a 4 games series to NY in Sept. Buchholz was just going to flip a switch one day in rotation, without going to bullpen. Owens would have pitched much better and our bullpen would have been just fine after all his 2,3, and 4 inning starts. It has to be 7 games because that's what it was. I got you. Can't say Pomeranz was the reason we made playoffs, but we can for sure say without him we make playoffs. OK that makes perfect sense! BTW- while I wanted Pomeranz I wouldn't have made that deal. I just find it funny your 100% certain. A lot of things happend as a result of that trade, like Buchholz bouncing back after a stint in bullpen, Owens not having to make more starts.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 11, 2017 15:11:58 GMT -5
I for one say yes, if only because he'd done it a few times before without going to the pen (and because his peripherals were as bad as the on-field results). He might've needed a phantom DL stint with the requisite "work to build arm strength (i.e. additional coaching/tinkering) and a few AAA rehab starts, but, yes, I think he pulls out of it. Again. If I remember right they had already done a phantom DL stint and it didn't work. So I'm not sure that a second one does it again. What we know is that the move to pen because they got Pomeranz made Buchholz a different pitcher for the last 1/3 of the season. In regards to Buchholz doing this before, when? When did he ever go 2/3 of a season being one of the worst starters to being a good starter for last 1/3 of season? He's had some stretches, but nothing like last year. Bucholz is the reason we don't have Espinoza anymore, plain and simple. He was so bad for the first 2/3 of the season that DD had to make a move. Perhaps. but did he have to trade the #13 prospect in all of baseball for a guy who had, until that year, been an 0.8 fWAR pitcher and who turned out to be injured - or trade that level of prospect, even, for a #5/6 starter?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 11, 2017 15:20:59 GMT -5
So Dave Dumbrowski tells Nesn that JBJ will not be on the DL and one hour later it gets announced that JBJ will be put on the DL. This guy is a clown. Did u like your own post?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 11, 2017 16:05:48 GMT -5
If I remember right they had already done a phantom DL stint and it didn't work. So I'm not sure that a second one does it again. What we know is that the move to pen because they got Pomeranz made Buchholz a different pitcher for the last 1/3 of the season. In regards to Buchholz doing this before, when? When did he ever go 2/3 of a season being one of the worst starters to being a good starter for last 1/3 of season? He's had some stretches, but nothing like last year. Bucholz is the reason we don't have Espinoza anymore, plain and simple. He was so bad for the first 2/3 of the season that DD had to make a move. Perhaps. but did he have to trade the #13 prospect in all of baseball for a guy who had, until that year, been an 0.8 fWAR pitcher and who turned out to be injured - or trade that level of prospect, even, for a #5/6 starter? I wouldn't have made that deal, but I can see why DD did. The kicker is that he talked to White Sox about Sale then. It was a very short-sighted move in my opinion to get Pomeranz and then trade for Sale. I can understand and live with one of them, but I hate that he made both of those deals. The main reason I was OK with Pomeranz deal is that it looked like we were all set on pitching. In all fairness though let's see what Pomeranz does going forward. DD sure doesn't think he's going to be a .8 WAR pitching going forward.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 11, 2017 16:45:58 GMT -5
I for one say yes, if only because he'd done it a few times before without going to the pen (and because his peripherals were as bad as the on-field results). He might've needed a phantom DL stint with the requisite "work to build arm strength (i.e. additional coaching/tinkering) and a few AAA rehab starts, but, yes, I think he pulls out of it. Again. If I remember right they had already done a phantom DL stint and it didn't work. So I'm not sure that a second one does it again. What we know is that the move to pen because they got Pomeranz made Buchholz a different pitcher for the last 1/3 of the season. In regards to Buchholz doing this before, when? When did he ever go 2/3 of a season being one of the worst starters to being a good starter for last 1/3 of season? He's had some stretches, but nothing like last year. Bucholz is the reason we don't have Espinoza anymore, plain and simple. He was so bad for the first 2/3 of the season that DD had to make a move. Well, he didn't "have" to. It was probably important in terms of improving their chances of making the playoffs. But judging by WAR, it wasn't the difference-maker. But even if one buys the narrative that a trade was important in improving their playoff chances, he didn't "have" to make that trade. There were other completely viable stopgap options (like Hellickson or bargaining down on Rich Hill). The evidence suggests that DD paid an Audi price on what may be a used VW because he thought he was getting an Audi. He could've paid much less for only slightly less performance-wise.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 11, 2017 16:55:57 GMT -5
If a team is so shallow that 13 starts of Drew Pomeranz produces a seven-win upgrade, then they aren't in a position to be trading Anderson Espinoza for Drew Pomeranz. That would reflect a team with such significant depth and management problems that trading a top prospect for a playoff push would be insane. Of course, he wasn't seven wins above anything. If Drew Pomeranz was worth seven wins over those 13 starts over the actually available replacement, then what was Porcello worth? 50 wins? Come on. I actually like Pomeranz. But the idea that the 93 win Red Sox end up an 86 win team without his two months of starts because you start pointing your dominoes toward some worst-case disaster scenario just doesn't jibe with reality. You're 100% right they could have never lost a 4 games series to NY in Sept. Buchholz was just going to flip a switch one day in rotation, without going to bullpen. Owens would have pitched much better and our bullpen would have been just fine after all his 2,3, and 4 inning starts. It has to be 7 games because that's what it was. I got you. Can't say Pomeranz was the reason we made playoffs, but we can for sure say without him we make playoffs. OK that makes perfect sense! BTW- while I wanted Pomeranz I wouldn't have made that deal. I just find it funny your 100% certain. A lot of things happend as a result of that trade, like Buchholz bouncing back after a stint in bullpen, Owens not having to make more starts. You're making an over-the-top straw man out of what he said. Argue the actual points in his post. Bold the original if you need to. "A lot of things happened." Yes. "Because of that trade." No, that's a false attribution. It may *seem* like it, and it certainly seems like the bullpen stint helped Buchholz. But Buchholz may have bounced back or Owens might have been adequate, or any other number of things. That's all speculation. What we DO know is that the team handily made the playoffs by well more than Pomeranz's 3-5, mid-4, <1 WAR. Nobody is saying Pomeranz *didn't* help, we're saying that there's very little hard evidence that he was the make-or-break difference (or even a major one).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 11, 2017 17:23:56 GMT -5
I really hope people don't start being as bitter about the Red Sox as half the population are about politics. It seems like some are getting to that point. Baseball is what helps me escape the extreme negativity in the world. I'm not sure how many times people can complain about the same thing before they move on. I don't watch the news or look at facebook or twitter because of politics now. I hope that won't happen with the Red Sox.
I just want to be entertained. I don't think the Red Sox should be a source of absolute misery, yet there is a contingent of people who absolutely are miserable over everything regarding the Red Sox unless they just simply fail to ever say a single positive thing. I wouldn't watch baseball if I was never happy about it ever.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Apr 11, 2017 18:00:55 GMT -5
Do not conflate Dombrowski with the Red Sox; he's nothing but a hired hand - an interloper, who for, what, all but 2 of his 60+ years has viewed the Red Sox with either indifference or dislike; who considers 2013 a nightmare instead of the cherished collective memory that it is for us
Dave Dombrowski is not the Boston Red Sox and he'll soon be gone and hopefully forgotten
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 11, 2017 18:05:13 GMT -5
If I remember right they had already done a phantom DL stint and it didn't work. So I'm not sure that a second one does it again. What we know is that the move to pen because they got Pomeranz made Buchholz a different pitcher for the last 1/3 of the season. In regards to Buchholz doing this before, when? When did he ever go 2/3 of a season being one of the worst starters to being a good starter for last 1/3 of season? He's had some stretches, but nothing like last year. Bucholz is the reason we don't have Espinoza anymore, plain and simple. He was so bad for the first 2/3 of the season that DD had to make a move. Well, he didn't "have" to. It was probably important in terms of improving their chances of making the playoffs. But judging by WAR, it wasn't the difference-maker. But even if one buys the narrative that a trade was important in improving their playoff chances, he didn't "have" to make that trade. There were other completely viable stopgap options (like Hellickson or bargaining down on Rich Hill). The evidence suggests that DD paid an Audi price on what may be a used VW because he thought he was getting an Audi. He could've paid much less for only slightly less performance-wise. Reports at the time said A's wanted Espinoza for Hill. In a seller's market the Phillies didn't trade Hellickson because of there high asking price. So while I agree he could have got someone else, those guys don't prove anything. If we had hind sight we should have went after Francisco Liriano. Thing is who would have thought he was going to be so good? As for the Audi and VW thing, how do we know? A big part of that trade was the two and a half years of team control. Let's see what he does going forward.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 11, 2017 18:23:27 GMT -5
You're 100% right they could have never lost a 4 games series to NY in Sept. Buchholz was just going to flip a switch one day in rotation, without going to bullpen. Owens would have pitched much better and our bullpen would have been just fine after all his 2,3, and 4 inning starts. It has to be 7 games because that's what it was. I got you. Can't say Pomeranz was the reason we made playoffs, but we can for sure say without him we make playoffs. OK that makes perfect sense! BTW- while I wanted Pomeranz I wouldn't have made that deal. I just find it funny your 100% certain. A lot of things happend as a result of that trade, like Buchholz bouncing back after a stint in bullpen, Owens not having to make more starts. You're making an over-the-top straw man out of what he said. Argue the actual points in his post. Bold the original if you need to. "A lot of things happened." Yes. "Because of that trade." No, that's a false attribution. It may *seem* like it, and it certainly seems like the bullpen stint helped Buchholz. But Buchholz may have bounced back or Owens might have been adequate, or any other number of things. That's all speculation. What we DO know is that the team handily made the playoffs by well more than Pomeranz's 3-5, mid-4, <1 WAR. Nobody is saying Pomeranz *didn't* help, we're saying that there's very little hard evidence that he was the make-or-break difference (or even a major one). The only thing we know is that with Pomeranz we made playoffs. It allowed Clay to find himself in pen and kept Owens from making starts. Without that trade we have no clue what happens. You can think Clay finds himself again, but that's not a given. You also have no clue what happens if Owens has to start 13 games and the impact that could have had on bullpen. If Clay doesn't turn around season and Owens pitches poorly things could have been bad. DD agrees, that's why he made a trade, rather than just start Owens. Ask yourself what if we don't get anyone and Clay and Owens pitch like they were pitching before the trade? In my opinion Pomeranz trade helped Clay, what if I'm right? It's not a far fetched idea.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 11, 2017 19:25:22 GMT -5
Well, he didn't "have" to. It was probably important in terms of improving their chances of making the playoffs. But judging by WAR, it wasn't the difference-maker. But even if one buys the narrative that a trade was important in improving their playoff chances, he didn't "have" to make that trade. There were other completely viable stopgap options (like Hellickson or bargaining down on Rich Hill). The evidence suggests that DD paid an Audi price on what may be a used VW because he thought he was getting an Audi. He could've paid much less for only slightly less performance-wise. Reports at the time said A's wanted Espinoza for Hill. In a seller's market the Phillies didn't trade Hellickson because of there high asking price. So while I agree he could have got someone else, those guys don't prove anything. If we had hind sight we should have went after Francisco Liriano. Thing is who would have thought he was going to be so good? As for the Audi and VW thing, how do we know? A big part of that trade was the two and a half years of team control. Let's see what he does going forward. I absolutely agree. I'm just making the counterpoint that the Sox could've made any number of moves. I'm actually like you in that I like Pomeranz, just not at that price. But I do think he's better than his season-ending stint. I think endurance had a lot to do with that. I do have some concern (and did then) that the Sox brass was overrating him some, but I think he pitches reasonably well this year. I'm pretty optimistic about the next two years.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Apr 11, 2017 19:34:15 GMT -5
So by that standard, any minor leaguers are just question marks and all major leaguers who help a team are worth more than that minor leaguer, right? Your argument is entirely based on players as types and not on their individual skills and values. What's funny is you're drawing this fake line between "sure thing" and "not a sure thing" but also treating it as a surety that Pomeranz put the Red Sox in the playoffs when they otherwise wouldn't have made it. They finished seven games ahead of the top non-playoff team and four games ahead of the wild card. Pomeranz was 3-5 with a 4.59 ERA in 13 starts. 1-- Is Pomeranz who was an all-start the 1st half of the year just "any major leaguer?" The way you make it sound it seems like I was saying that a fringe mlb player is the same as an all-star player.
2-- IMO your question to me is based on what you accuse me of. Didn't Pomeranz have a certain set of skills that led to be a highly successful mlb in 1st half of last year? I have to ask, why aren't you accounting for those skills? If Eric was here -- he may be able to cite his posts that he said Pomeranz's "stuff" had improved so much that he was more like a "2." More than likely that's the type of skills and value that we / or maybe DD focused on, right? Anyhow here is a link of Pomeranz mid-July in which fangraphs was speaking of his stuff- imo that is his skills: IMo certainly is something that you can count on. So yessss-- that makes pomz a sure thing last year which he showed he was.
www.fangraphs.com/blogs/drew-pomeranz-now-with-50-more-pitches/
3-- The Red Sox bullpen was on the verge of collapse during Pomz hot stretch, was it not? When bullpens collapse and you don;'t have starters that can get you good starts, there is no way that if you add up both we would have been "7 games ahead" by the end of the season. Thus you don't buy into stress/ tight games in which the SOx were terrible in close games? We didn't seem to play well under tight games did we? Weren;t we awful? When Koji came back and when Kimbrel came back we didn't have to overuse them, right? What would have happened ot an oversued Kimbrel or Koji? Taz was overused, Barnes was shaky, Kelly unreliable and Ross not that good. You see what happened with Kimbrel and his poor control last year - and especially when he got to a pitch certain pitch count that wasn't that high, you could see that his fastball melted. If you don't think that stretch of games wouldn't have affected future games the way last year's team was so awful during close games, then we can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 11, 2017 23:20:17 GMT -5
Not sure how much credit you give the GM for this, but it's at least indirect via coaching, and probably some direct recognition of a possible bump in performance from a change (even reversion) in approach. Nice to see, though; the Sox D makes this even more effective, as will good framing (which the ChiSox were terrible at last year): www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-red-sox-have-turned-back-the-chris-sale-clock/
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Apr 14, 2017 9:30:24 GMT -5
Moncada Margot Kopech Espinoza for Sale
Does anyone make that trade by itslef?
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 14, 2017 10:04:20 GMT -5
Moncada Margot Kopech Espinoza for Sale Does anyone make that trade by itslef? No but neither did the Red Sox/Dombrowski so I am not exactly sure what you are getting at?
|
|
|