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 telson13 on Jan 8, 2019 23:47:14 GMT -5
Shelby Miller for $6-8mil with options for 2020-21 guves rhem bullpen and starter depth. Much better investment than Pomeranz, IMHO. I think Shelby Miller is exactly the sort of MLB reclamation project that this coaching staff is designed for. Idk why he dumped the CH, because I’m not sure the FB/CU/CB mix is sufficient. But I think Bannister and Levangie could get him back on track, by helping sort some of those issues out. Miller’s velocity last year was excellent, but command was junk...not surprising given the layoff. He’ll pitch all of 2019 at just 28. I think there’s a very, very good pitcher in there, probably a 2/3 but maybe even a 1a. He reminds me a little of Carrasco. A 1+1 deal with vesting option based on IP/performance seems like a wise investment (depending on how they plan to use him...I think a Carrasco-like bullpen stretch before going back to the rotation would be good for him and the team). I’m pretty certain his stuff plays up in the ‘pen, and he has three pitches. He’d give them an option for Porcello’s departure, potentially at just a fraction of the cost, and if he did stay for 2 years, he’d be just 30 looking at a FA deal after resurrecting his career. Big fan of this idea.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 9, 2019 15:17:24 GMT -5
The Red Sox have five starters and a bunch of depth options. Pomeranz' best bet is to build up his value. Find a team with rotation needs (plenty out there), a big ballpark which would be helpful. He'd fit in nicely with a team like Oakland. He's more likely to make bigger $ as a starter so I think that would be the role he'd be trying to get and given that rotations need help, that's the role he's likely going to have a possibility to get. But I'd think that would happen once the bigger dominoes begin to fall so he'll probably be a late January signing. Indeed, once the more obvious options are gone, there will still be teams for whom Pomeranz as 5th starter would be a good idea.
What some folks are missing is that Pomeranz knows what his best bet is. He's not signing with any team where he goes into ST as the clear #6 option, let alone either 7 or 8 as he would with the Sox. In fact, it's very likely that someone will guarantee him that the 5th starter job is his to lose, and if that's the case, he's not signing without that.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Jan 23, 2019 13:57:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 23, 2019 14:37:07 GMT -5
$1.5m. Imagine how much he cost himself last year.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 23, 2019 15:23:31 GMT -5
Remember when they said he was throwing better during the World Series? Not $1.6m better, I guess.
(All joking aside, he probably got a lot of similar contract offers, maybe even from the Red Sox, and went with SF because of the ballpark and the easy path to playing time.)
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jan 23, 2019 16:29:34 GMT -5
Farewell to "Who?" Pomeranz. One nice season, time to move on...and wish him the best.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,638
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2019 17:10:13 GMT -5
The Red Sox got one really good season from Pomeranz. How many will the Padres ultimately get from Espinoza?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 23, 2019 22:38:38 GMT -5
Remember when they said he was throwing better during the World Series? Not $1.6m better, I guess. (All joking aside, he probably got a lot of similar contract offers, maybe even from the Red Sox, and went with SF because of the ballpark and the easy path to playing time.) Honestly, even if he were offered $5-7M on a one-year deal with the Sox or a similarly rotation-loaded team/AL team like Baltimore or Tor with a hitter-friendly Park, I think it still makes way more sense for him to take the short money SF deal. That park is perfect for him (really, most pitchers, but especially flyball guys), it’s NL, and the only legitimately “good” team in that division is LA. He’s also familiar with the NL west. CO and AZ might hurt him a bit, and analytics are going to take some luster off his final numbers, but he should be able to get 30 starts if healthy and pitching even at 4/5 level. Remember Peavy post-trade? I’d have loved to have him back on a deal like what he got, but you’ve gotta think he picked the ideal situation to parlay that 1-year into a 3/40-4/60 or so deal. I wish him luck, he had a terrific ‘17 for us. It was kinda sad seeing him sitting by himself pondering after the WS win.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 24, 2019 9:04:02 GMT -5
Wow-- what a drop he had. I thought before last year he was a 2/3. Damn.
Anyways Pomeranz gave us 1 year plus in value. In 2016 he saved the Sox for a stretch when the starters and bullpen were imploding. WHta he did in that stretch allowed the Sox to regroup.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan511 on Apr 18, 2019 23:07:49 GMT -5
The Red Sox got one really good season from Pomeranz. How many will the Padres ultimately get from Espinoza? Definitely gave up way too good of a prospect for Pomeranz
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 18, 2019 23:19:34 GMT -5
I honestly can't tell if you mocking all of us who said that at the time, or if you are legitimately mad the Red Sox sold high on a guy who hasn't thrown a pitch in 31 months in exchange for a guy who pretty directly contributed to two division titles.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Apr 19, 2019 8:10:21 GMT -5
I honestly can't tell if you mocking all of us who said that at the time, or if you are legitimately mad the Red Sox sold high on a guy who hasn't thrown a pitch in 31 months in exchange for a guy who pretty directly contributed to two division titles. While it has worked favorably in the Sox favor, I do believe they could have gotten a better player for him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 19, 2019 8:19:43 GMT -5
I honestly can't tell if you mocking all of us who said that at the time, or if you are legitimately mad the Red Sox sold high on a guy who hasn't thrown a pitch in 31 months in exchange for a guy who pretty directly contributed to two division titles. While it has worked favorably in the Sox favor, I do believe they could have gotten a better player for him. They never should have sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 19, 2019 8:49:01 GMT -5
Result of the trade and quality of the trade are different things.
If I gave you $20 and you gave me $5, it's not a good trade just bc the $20 flew out of your pocket on a windy day while i was able to use the $5.
The value (at the time) of Espinoza seemed too high to give up for Pomeranz by all accounts. What happened after SHOULD be a separate discussion.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,638
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 19, 2019 8:56:51 GMT -5
The Red Sox got one really good season from Pomeranz. How many will the Padres ultimately get from Espinoza? Definitely gave up way too good of a prospect for Pomeranz What's your point exactly? I didn't like the deal at all then and I still don't care for it. I still think Espinoza will be a good pitcher down the line, but now there's a lot less certainty. He's still young enough to recover and become an effective pitcher down the line. I do wish the Red Sox had a starting pitching prospect the caliber of Espinoza in the system. As far as Pomeranz goes, he did give the Sox a strong 2017 and contributed to the division title run. He was meh in 2016 and awful in 2018, but at least he gave them some value.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 19, 2019 8:56:56 GMT -5
I suggest we all just move on from this topic.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,638
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 19, 2019 8:58:29 GMT -5
I suggest we all just move on from this topic. So how do we feel about the Jeff Bagwell/Larry Andersen deal?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 19, 2019 9:00:06 GMT -5
Result of the trade and quality of the trade are different things. If I gave you $20 and you gave me $5, it's not a good trade just bc the $20 flew out of your pocket on a windy day while i was able to use the $5. The value (at the time) of Espinoza seemed too high to give up for Pomeranz by all accounts. What happened after SHOULD be a separate discussion. It seemed high with our incomplete information. If the Red Sox had any reason to think Espinoza was an injury risk, they were proven right. (Seriously, the trade happened three years ago and he's made seven more professional starts). If the Red Sox thought Pomeranz was a good bet to continue to be good, they were mostly right (he was useful to a team that badly needed him in 2016, excellent in 2017, broken in 2018). Could they have gotten "more" for Espinoza? Without knowing that, it's kind of impossible to say, right? But they definitely sold high on him, and definitely got a key piece of those 2016 and 2017 division-winning teams. I thought it was a bad trade at the time and said so a lot. But it's not just that the trade worked out, it's that it worked out in pretty much exactly the way someone defending the trade would have defended it. Dombrowski was right on this one. I suggest we all just move on from this topic. Might be useful to move it to a different subforum. If people want to seriously revisit a trade that didn't go how most people expected it would, I think that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 19, 2019 9:21:29 GMT -5
It seemed high with our incomplete information. If the Red Sox had any reason to think Espinoza was an injury risk, they were proven right. (Seriously, the trade happened three years ago and he's made seven more professional starts). If the Red Sox thought Pomeranz was a good bet to continue to be good, they were mostly right (he was useful to a team that badly needed him in 2016, excellent in 2017, broken in 2018). Could they have gotten "more" for Espinoza? Without knowing that, it's kind of impossible to say, right? But they definitely sold high on him, and definitely got a key piece of those 2016 and 2017 division-winning teams. I thought it was a bad trade at the time and said so a lot. But it's not just that the trade worked out, it's that it worked out in pretty much exactly the way someone defending the trade would have defended it. Dombrowski was right on this one. I think their reason was that he throws baseballs, a lot, and very hard. Which is a pretty good reason! What I think is true, and what I very well may have said at the time, is that Pomeranz at the time he was acquired represented a better player than the median outcome for a prospect like Espinoza. I think we were too worried about the worst case scenario, without properly weighing the likelihood of that scenario coming to pass.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 19, 2019 9:29:53 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Pom is Pom in his first four starts. Good for about 5innings of highwire walking. Damn me, I like that dude. But I liked Dice-K too... keeps my blood pressure up.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Apr 19, 2019 9:32:21 GMT -5
It seemed high with our incomplete information. If the Red Sox had any reason to think Espinoza was an injury risk, they were proven right. (Seriously, the trade happened three years ago and he's made seven more professional starts). If the Red Sox thought Pomeranz was a good bet to continue to be good, they were mostly right (he was useful to a team that badly needed him in 2016, excellent in 2017, broken in 2018). Could they have gotten "more" for Espinoza? Without knowing that, it's kind of impossible to say, right? But they definitely sold high on him, and definitely got a key piece of those 2016 and 2017 division-winning teams. I thought it was a bad trade at the time and said so a lot. But it's not just that the trade worked out, it's that it worked out in pretty much exactly the way someone defending the trade would have defended it. Dombrowski was right on this one. I think their reason was that he throws baseballs, a lot, and very hard. Which is a pretty good reason! What I think is true, and what I very well may have said at the time, is that Pomeranz at the time he was acquired represented a better player than the median outcome for a prospect like Espinoza. I think we were too worried about the worst case scenario, without properly weighing the likelihood of that scenario coming to pass. Well, more to that though, he was a small, wiry guy. While he threw like Pedro in the minors, he was also built like him and THAT position isn't kind to smaller players (unlike the OF apparently). I'm still periodically checking his status just counting the days I can come back and say "told you so" to everyone who liked this trade....8 years later.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Apr 19, 2019 14:17:21 GMT -5
Trading damaged goods to a team and then pursuing a grievance against that team for trading damages goods would be . . . an approach.
That being said, my larger point was about the distinction in evaluation points and value versus results.
|
|
|
Post by boydhurstlovechild on Apr 26, 2019 18:17:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 26, 2019 19:02:25 GMT -5
Huge bummer. His stuff really was incredible, and he commanded it. Not many other guys who are former Sox that i root for as hard.
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Apr 26, 2019 19:39:39 GMT -5
|
|
|