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 Eric Hosmer
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 3, 2022 12:21:10 GMT -5
I think I value the league minimum salary for Hosmer more than you seem to. Hosmer is decent offensively. 107 wRC+ this year and for his career. Even if ericmvan's optimism about his bat in Fenway is unwarranted, that is still an above average big league bat until age takes it away. Defensively he's below average, but competent. That's a massive upgrade at 1B for this year versus the Cordero/Dalbec platoon, and basically for free. Casas is on the way at some point late this year or early next year. JDM is probably gone after this season, though. So, enter Hosmer as a DH. I don't see him as a backup option, or insurance, although he may turn into that if Casas fails. I see him as a clear starter. You might look at his numbers and think they look mediocre, and that's fine, but he will be making the league minimum and he provides value at that price. Having Hosmer means one less position the Sox need to stretch their free agent budget over, which will allow them to bring in more quality players to round out the roster. Value is the name of the game, and Hosmer has it. Edit: My only question is if Bobby and Hosmer will both hang around if and when Casas establishes himself. A guy like Arroyo, who can handle 3B in addition to middle infield, feels more valuable as a backup, and would make a dedicated 1B/3B guy unnecessary if he can stay healthy. I suppose it depends on performance, health, and how extreme the platoon splits end up being. I made no reference to his salary so I don't know how you came to that conclusion. If you check my earlier posts, before the details were revealed, I repeatedly mentioned the benefits to this trade if the Padres were willing to pay-down his salary, which they did. His salary is still good for a bench/platoon player, which is how I view Hosmer (although I full expect him to start through the rest of the year due to the limited options). As I mentioned, I think there's optimism that he will remain close to his 107 wRC+ which is an above average bat, but below average for a 1st baseman (112 wRC+). Arroyo is extremely underrated and I'd like to see him continue to get regular playing time but I don't think Dalbec and he are redundant outside of the 'backup 3B' role - those 2 can easily co-exist (would still like to see Dalbec in the OF more) although Dalbec getting regular playing time in AAA to work out the kinks could be a long-term benefit. Casas and Hosmer will be far more difficult given their similar skill-sets. It's not an issue currently, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hosmer's stay in Boston is for less than half of his contract length. If he performs at his typical level, given his cheap salary, the Red Sox could probably flip him for another asset, which would make this trade even better.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Aug 3, 2022 12:27:58 GMT -5
It's funny, I don't recall a deafening outcry during the off-season to do something about 1B. There was no "Who should be the first baseman?" thread although there was a "When do we see Big Triston Casas?" thread.
My recollection is that people were mostly excited about Dalbec's last couple months of 2021 and universally excited about the prospect of Casas making a significant contribution to the second half of the season. So acquiring Hosmer was not only not an urgent need but I would hazard that many here would have wondered why Chaim was blocking Casas.
There were people who wanted to sign Schwarber but the thing about that is he's not a 1B. He has played a total of 11 games at 1B in his 7-year career (9 starts, 6 finishes), all but one with the Red Sox after last year's trade deadline, and none this year. He is a LF/DH, just like J.D. Martinez (Hey, there's an idea! Put JD at 1B! He could learn!).
The other problem I have with the "Hosmer before the season" argument is that there's no way on God's green Earth that this deal would've been made before the season.
First base has clearly not worked out so far this year but it's not like there wasn't a plan. Bobby and Franchy have shown flashes at the plate but both have struggled in the field. Travis Shaw was toast. Casas got hurt. Murphy's Law, best laid plans, etc. The plain fact that Hosmer is an obvious upgrade tells you all you need to know.
Obviously this deal doesn’t get made then. I was definitely calling for a 1b. There was much excitement when briefly there was talk of Freeman. Dalbec had a hot streak but… this was predictable. And I have been wise to Franchy from go. The point is, for a team with little present and huge questions next year, getting a maybe-slightly-above average 32-year old 1b — when your top prospect is a 1b penciled in for next year — maybe absolutely no risk, but the gain ought not be overestimated. When one of the exciting parts is “hey, we can release him any time without costing anything,” it says a lot. I’ll say this: you take a great core like 2018, put Hosmer at 1st, and it is huge. You take a team with questions at many positions… not a difference maker. News flash….every trade does not have to be a “difference maker”!
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Aug 3, 2022 12:52:00 GMT -5
Hosmer has never pitched MLB/milb, so he's available.
He has played RF, minimally. So he can replace Arroyo as occasional RF.
Verdugo is in RF, but perhaps it's away games only.
What's the update on Sox being over Luxury Tax threshold?
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,403
|
Post by radiohix on Aug 3, 2022 14:02:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaffinator on Aug 3, 2022 14:28:07 GMT -5
Interesting notes about MLB Pipeline ratings of the prospects in the deal within their systems- •Ferguson was 11th in the Padres system at the time of the deal (which admittedly was after the Padres traded a ton of their top talent). He's slotting in at at 30 for the Sox per Pipeline. •Rosier was 26th in the Padres system at the time of the deal and is somewhere outside of the Sox top 30 (they only do a top 30). •Groome was 11th in the Sox system and is now 11th in the Padres system. Shaky observations about this- •Both the Padres and Sox have exactly 10 prospects better than Groome. •The Padres have 10 prospects better than Ferguson, the Red Sox have 29. Even more shaky conclusion to draw from this- •While nothing can be said about comparing the top ten of the Padres and Sox system, apparently if you start right after 10, the Red Sox have a much better system in that next tier. As had often been pointed out around here, the core of a system's value is its top talent, depth only enhances it marginally. But it's better to have depth than not, and there are practical reasons to be happy that the Sox have more guys who are guys in the 10-30 range (see: this year's crazy injuries necessitating those guys being called up). Regardless, it will be interesting to see where the Padres recently depleted system falls to in system wide ranking lists. Source: www.mlb.com/redsox/news/eric-hosmer-red-sox-tradeThe strength of a system is its core, not its depth, but it's also the case that a big benefit of depth is having more lottery tickets so to speak. You have both Ferguson and Rosier and every so often a guy with that profile has a breakout like Duran did (even if he's not replicating it in the big leagues right now). Not that they were identical prospects beforehand by any means, but it's nice to have both Gilberto Jimenez and Ceddanne Rafaela to maximize the chances of seeing at least one guy be a real athletic outfield prospect. Statistically, you're better off having two guys with a 0.2 chance of breaking out than one guy with a 0.6 chance of breaking out (ignoring some modelling complexities and realities about the 40 man) and it feels like the Red Sox have lived that philosophy at times from IFA signings to trade returns.
|
|
|
Post by jaffinator on Aug 3, 2022 14:53:38 GMT -5
Groome had Tommy John in 2018. He returned in 2019. It's been quite some time since he's had the surgery by now and while it's technically possible that the stuff "returns" it should by no means be assumed and at this point looks really unlikely. He pitches like a completely different guy now and the stuff just doesn't profile at the major league level. It's about rebuilding arm strength and getting the feeling back for pitching. It's two years of playing, he's not even at 200 innings since his surgery. The lost 2020 season killed him. Sure it's not a given, would have liked to see what he looked like next spring though He's a LHP striking out about a batter per inning. Showing the ability to work out of jams. That's his stuff doesn't profile at MLB level? More like he went from #2/3 starter to backend guy/bullpen piece. I certainly would have tried a bullpen role before trading him for not much. We've seen guys velocity increase many times when they aren't worried about saving engery for multiple innings. I went from thinking I'd get to see a few starts this year, to he's gone and I don't like it. The timing was certainly negative for him and I feel for the guy but there isn't a lot of evidence that more years after returning from TJ means better outcomes. If anything the season after you return might be your best from that point on: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0363546514528864?casa_token=62yHHZtnkpkAAAAA%3A5ZNOcgggmSRzuEIYHNL6AUB3kuQN6HYDbEdYiLQu8zOuYVsRbfITD4j8l1c8-DmRvPryFUd5ikoAnd no, the stuff doesn't profile at MLB level. The fastball is absolutely begging for trouble, the changeup has a ways to go to hit average, there's the beginnings of a below average slider, and the curve tops out at above average and that's when he's feeling good with it which isn't even all the time. The stuff doesn't profile at MLB level.
|
|
|
Post by wkdbigsoxfan on Aug 3, 2022 19:23:32 GMT -5
If the Padres were willing to pay his entire salary to save $5 million in AAV for luxury tax, did Bloom miss an opportunity here? What could he have gotten If we took on his entire salary? I would have taken that contract if it meant getting Campusano. That's buying prospects. They've been window shopping with cash in their pocket at the Padres prospect store for years. It's clear they weren't selling at an attractive price. I wonder if they wanted him at minimum because they thought they were making another deal to get under the tax. If they knew that was their last move, maybe the Sox try to take more money and better prospects.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 3, 2022 20:44:31 GMT -5
They've been window shopping with cash in their pocket at the Padres prospect store for years. It's clear they weren't selling at an attractive price. I wonder if they wanted him at minimum because they thought they were making another deal to get under the tax. If they knew that was their last move, maybe the Sox try to take more money and better prospects.
Here's what I think happened:
The Padres knew we liked Hosmer because the two teams have had multiple conversations about the Sox eating salary by getting prospects.
Padres' ownership approves eating all of Hosmer's contract in order to land Soto. That's an 18M hit on their AAV for 2023-2025. The first two of those years, you can add that to what Soto gets through arbitration and, compared to the sunk cost you had previously, you're way ahead.
The Soto deal (among others) is doing a number on their farm system. They're not exactly looking to shed more prospects. And the money for eating Hosmer's contract has already been budgeted.
So they call Bloom and offer a fully-paid Hosmer. Neither side is even thinking of the prospects-for-dollars thing because the Sox understand the circumstances. And the teams quickly settle on the players involved.
I believe the Padres had a roster crunch. It was trade him to the Red Sox (probably the only contender with an interest) or get nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 3, 2022 21:14:48 GMT -5
I can’t lie trading Groome hurts but at least my boy Murphy made it past the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Aug 3, 2022 23:25:45 GMT -5
Interesting notes about MLB Pipeline ratings of the prospects in the deal within their systems- •Ferguson was 11th in the Padres system at the time of the deal (which admittedly was after the Padres traded a ton of their top talent). He's slotting in at at 30 for the Sox per Pipeline. •Rosier was 26th in the Padres system at the time of the deal and is somewhere outside of the Sox top 30 (they only do a top 30). •Groome was 11th in the Sox system and is now 11th in the Padres system. Shaky observations about this- •Both the Padres and Sox have exactly 10 prospects better than Groome. •The Padres have 10 prospects better than Ferguson, the Red Sox have 29. Even more shaky conclusion to draw from this- •While nothing can be said about comparing the top ten of the Padres and Sox system, apparently if you start right after 10, the Red Sox have a much better system in that next tier. As had often been pointed out around here, the core of a system's value is its top talent, depth only enhances it marginally. But it's better to have depth than not, and there are practical reasons to be happy that the Sox have more guys who are guys in the 10-30 range (see: this year's crazy injuries necessitating those guys being called up). Regardless, it will be interesting to see where the Padres recently depleted system falls to in system wide ranking lists. Source: www.mlb.com/redsox/news/eric-hosmer-red-sox-tradeThe strength of a system is its core, not its depth, but it's also the case that a big benefit of depth is having more lottery tickets so to speak. You have both Ferguson and Rosier and every so often a guy with that profile has a breakout like Duran did (even if he's not replicating it in the big leagues right now). Not that they were identical prospects beforehand by any means, but it's nice to have both Gilberto Jimenez and Ceddanne Rafaela to maximize the chances of seeing at least one guy be a real athletic outfield prospect. Statistically, you're better off having two guys with a 0.2 chance of breaking out than one guy with a 0.6 chance of breaking out (ignoring some modelling complexities and realities about the 40 man) and it feels like the Red Sox have lived that philosophy at times from IFA signings to trade returns. This makes no sense to me. Shouldn't two .2 guys give a ~.4% chance of one succeeding (and a negligible chance of both succeeding), while the one .6 guy of course has a .6% chance of succeeding? And you'd think the .6 guy would be better for the roster management reasons you allude to too.
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Aug 4, 2022 1:15:04 GMT -5
I haven`t seen it mentioned. Hosmer can opt out of his 3yrs for $39. Doubt if he would but what if he hits pretty good for 2 months? Too many better FA. San Diego would love it.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 4, 2022 8:42:45 GMT -5
Seen on Twitter Groome was the key to getting Padres to pay the complete contract and they wouldn't have without him.
I tend to believe Erics take that they had already written him off. Yet Padres GM played hardball. I can't help but think Bloom should have gotten more. That GM clearly wanted Groome since the draft, needed to unload Hosmer and save that $5 million in AAV. You already had leverage, the minute he demanded Groome you should have known you had him even more. Bloom gets some level 40 prospects.
You can certainly say it's decent, like most of his moves. I just want to see him value better prospects over more lesser guys. I don't like taking two nickles over a dime, yet that seems to be Blooms MO.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Aug 4, 2022 8:45:07 GMT -5
Statistically, you're better off having two guys with a 0.2 chance of breaking out than one guy with a 0.6 chance of breaking out (ignoring some modelling complexities and realities about the 40 man) and it feels like the Red Sox have lived that philosophy at times from IFA signings to trade returns. This makes no sense to me. Shouldn't two .2 guys give a ~.4% chance of one succeeding (and a negligible chance of both succeeding), while the one .6 guy of course has a .6% chance of succeeding? And you'd think the .6 guy would be better for the roster management reasons you allude to too. The math seems slightly off to me. The two 20% prospects would have a 64% rate of both failing (0.8*0.8), a 4% rate of both succeeding (0.2*0.2), and a 32% chance of one succeeding (remainder). I'm willing to admit my arithmetic may be off. Of course, very, very few prospects have a 60% breakout rate. When FG did their 2022 Top 100 Prospects list, they included outcome distribution graphs. Even guys like Adley Rutschman and Julio Rodriguez only had about a 40% of realizing their projected FV, with about a 35% chance of "busting" as below average players. Except for the very top of the rankings, "quantity vs. quality" argument is really more like 3 guys with 10% success rate versus 1 guy with a 25% success rate. Then it's a matter of figuring out how to find enough roster space and playing time so that the team can drive their development.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 4, 2022 8:49:44 GMT -5
Seen on Twitter Groome was the key to getting Padres to pay the complete contract and they wouldn't have without him. I tend to believe Erics take that they had already written him off. Yet Padres GM played hardball. I can't help but think Bloom should have gotten more. That GM clearly wanted Groome since the draft, needed to unload Hosmer and save that $5 million in AAV. You already had leverage, the minute he demanded Groome you should have known you had him even more. Bloom gets some level 40 prospects. You can certainly say it's decent, like most of his moves. I just want to see him value better prospects over more lesser guys. I don't like taking two nickles over a dime, yet that seems to be Blooms MO. I was a Groome guy… *really* wanted him to work. Buuuutttt… by this time, the surgery is no excuse, and it really sounds like he was pretty average. And there was the 40 man crunch. I’m not too shaken by letting him go. This seems like a situation where we give up something we can’t/won’t use, and they get something they think they can.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 4, 2022 9:10:35 GMT -5
Seen on Twitter Groome was the key to getting Padres to pay the complete contract and they wouldn't have without him. I tend to believe Erics take that they had already written him off. Yet Padres GM played hardball. I can't help but think Bloom should have gotten more. That GM clearly wanted Groome since the draft, needed to unload Hosmer and save that $5 million in AAV. You already had leverage, the minute he demanded Groome you should have known you had him even more. Bloom gets some level 40 prospects. You can certainly say it's decent, like most of his moves. I just want to see him value better prospects over more lesser guys. I don't like taking two nickles over a dime, yet that seems to be Blooms MO. Groome is probably not going to be worth $44m, which would be about 5 WAR in a big league career. There's a real chance he doesn't progress past the cup-of-coffee level.
As mediocre as Hosmer is (@eric's research notwithstanding), he could well yield that much WAR in the next three years.
It makes sense that the Padres were targeting Groome, given the final structure of the trade. SD is desperate to move Hosmer, so Chaim calls and says "What'll it take to get Hosmer and you eat the contract?" "Groome." "Well, we can do that, but how about you throw in a couple lottery tickets with 60+ speed?" "Done."
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,903
|
Post by nomar on Aug 4, 2022 9:42:45 GMT -5
Seen on Twitter Groome was the key to getting Padres to pay the complete contract and they wouldn't have without him. I tend to believe Erics take that they had already written him off. Yet Padres GM played hardball. I can't help but think Bloom should have gotten more. That GM clearly wanted Groome since the draft, needed to unload Hosmer and save that $5 million in AAV. You already had leverage, the minute he demanded Groome you should have known you had him even more. Bloom gets some level 40 prospects. You can certainly say it's decent, like most of his moves. I just want to see him value better prospects over more lesser guys. I don't like taking two nickles over a dime, yet that seems to be Blooms MO. I was a Groome guy… *really* wanted him to work. Buuuutttt… by this time, the surgery is no excuse, and it really sounds like he was pretty average. And there was the 40 man crunch. I’m not too shaken by letting him go. This seems like a situation where we give up something we can’t/won’t use, and they get something they think they can. Agreed. Groome has/had potential but his stuff isn’t blowing anyone away, he had BB issues, and I don’t think you could justify giving him a 40 man spot going forward. San Diego will have a spot for him, but unless he finds an extra gear, it will be inconsequential.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Aug 4, 2022 9:56:16 GMT -5
This makes no sense to me. Shouldn't two .2 guys give a ~.4% chance of one succeeding (and a negligible chance of both succeeding), while the one .6 guy of course has a .6% chance of succeeding? And you'd think the .6 guy would be better for the roster management reasons you allude to too. The math seems slightly off to me. The two 20% prospects would have a 64% rate of both failing (0.8*0.8), a 4% rate of both succeeding (0.2*0.2), and a 32% chance of one succeeding (remainder). I'm willing to admit my arithmetic may be off. Of course, very, very few prospects have a 60% breakout rate. When FG did their 2022 Top 100 Prospects list, they included outcome distribution graphs. Even guys like Adley Rutschman and Julio Rodriguez only had about a 40% of realizing their projected FV, with about a 35% chance of "busting" as below average players. Except for the very top of the rankings, "quantity vs. quality" argument is really more like 3 guys with 10% success rate versus 1 guy with a 25% success rate. Then it's a matter of figuring out how to find enough roster space and playing time so that the team can drive their development. Oh good grief I took .2 as 0.2%, not 20% - 0.2% gives you a 0.3996% chance of at least one success. 20% should be a 36% chance of at least one success and a 4% rate of a double success, just like you said. That's my bad!
Whether it's two 20% guys versus a 60% guys or two 0.2% guys versus a 0.6% guy, though, I have no clue how we'd be better off with the two 20% or 0.2% guys. If the percentages are close enough to swing the relative chance of success, though, I can definitely see the volume argument, up until a point where 40-man stuff and roster space is relevant.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 4, 2022 10:45:58 GMT -5
Seen on Twitter Groome was the key to getting Padres to pay the complete contract and they wouldn't have without him. I tend to believe Erics take that they had already written him off. Yet Padres GM played hardball. I can't help but think Bloom should have gotten more. That GM clearly wanted Groome since the draft, needed to unload Hosmer and save that $5 million in AAV. You already had leverage, the minute he demanded Groome you should have known you had him even more. Bloom gets some level 40 prospects. You can certainly say it's decent, like most of his moves. I just want to see him value better prospects over more lesser guys. I don't like taking two nickles over a dime, yet that seems to be Blooms MO. Is there any planet where the Padres like Groome better than Bello, Walter, Mata, Murphy, or Wincokowski? That seems unlikely. I'm not even sure they'd rank him ahead of Seabold.
I had pointed out a while ago that the Sox projected to have at least 6 guys for the Woosox rotation next year, and I may have even talked about moving one at the deadline. Preller knew that. It follows that the "we have to have Groome" thing is very likely "we have to have one of your surplus AAA-ready SP. Bloom: "How about Groome?" "Groome would be great."
I think the Sox win the trade without the two lottery tickets.
Oh, and the Padres were not going to give us anything better, after the Soto deal.
Next: four reasons why Hosmer should hit better for the Sox than in San Diego,
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 4, 2022 10:48:10 GMT -5
Seen on Twitter Groome was the key to getting Padres to pay the complete contract and they wouldn't have without him. I tend to believe Erics take that they had already written him off. Yet Padres GM played hardball. I can't help but think Bloom should have gotten more. That GM clearly wanted Groome since the draft, needed to unload Hosmer and save that $5 million in AAV. You already had leverage, the minute he demanded Groome you should have known you had him even more. Bloom gets some level 40 prospects. You can certainly say it's decent, like most of his moves. I just want to see him value better prospects over more lesser guys. I don't like taking two nickles over a dime, yet that seems to be Blooms MO. Is there any planet where the Padres like Groome better than Bello, Walter, Mata, Murphy, or Wincokowski? That seems unlikely. I'm not even sure they'd rank him ahead of Seabold.
I had pointed out a while ago that the Sox projected to have at least 6 guys for the Woosox rotation next year, and I may have even talked about moving one at the deadline. Preller knew that. It follows that the "we have to have Groome" thing is very likely "we have to have one of your AAA-ready SP. Bloom: "How about Groome?" "Groome would be great."
I think they win the trade without the two lottery tickets.
Oh, and the Padres were not going to give us anything better, after the Soto deal.
Next: four reasons why Hosmer should hit better for the Sox than in San Diego,
Better than Winck, yes, because he is a lefty with comparably average stuff. Maybe even better than Seabold because a) he’s older and hurt, and b) he doesn’t look good. Groome may not be good, but at least we don’t know it yet!!
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Aug 4, 2022 10:52:09 GMT -5
Groome's AA xFIP this year is half a run worse than Winck's major league xFIP.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Aug 4, 2022 11:14:14 GMT -5
I've heard Hosmer has a bit of a neck injury - is he getting added to the roster today or is he in limbo? It'd be cool for his first game with the Sox to be in Kansas City. I bet the fans would give him a great reception!
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 4, 2022 11:26:14 GMT -5
One more Groome note:
While he was an understandable pick, he ends up in the Trey Ball category of blown early 1st round picks. I didn’t look back at that draft, but I have to assume there are some pretty good players going behind him.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 4, 2022 11:40:38 GMT -5
One more Groome note: While he was an understandable pick, he ends up in the Trey Ball category of blown early 1st round picks. I didn’t look back at that draft, but I have to assume there are some pretty good players going behind him. yikes. He’s a failed first round pick but he was the obvious choice at 12. Nothing like Ball.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 4, 2022 11:45:15 GMT -5
One more Groome note: While he was an understandable pick, he ends up in the Trey Ball category of blown early 1st round picks. I didn’t look back at that draft, but I have to assume there are some pretty good players going behind him. Most MLB draft picks end up blown. You can use the "there are some pretty good players going behind him" argument for just about anyone. The difference between Groome and Trey Ball is that while there were other options that seemed better even at the time with Ball (Meadows being the obvious one), Groome was leaps and bounds the BPA and wasn't even thought to have a chance at dropping that far. If you consider MLB picks to be "blown" off of result rather than focusing on the process then a very minimal percentage of picks will ever be looked at favorably. The process with Groome was sound and some of his shortcomings were probably just as much bad luck as anything. I view it as a good pick even if he never got any MLB innings with the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Aug 4, 2022 11:54:59 GMT -5
The 2016 draft was really bad - specifically the 1st round. Only 8 players from that draft have made an all star game (Bryan Renolds, Pete Alonso, Bo Bichette, Corbin Burnes, Shane Bieber, Tony Gonsolin, Santiago Espinal, and David Bednar). None were first rounders. Espinal was drafted by the Red Sox, obviously. There are some others that may make an all star game, but I'm not seeing a lot of highly touted prospects among the other selections.
I don't think you can specifically point to the Groome selection and draw any conclusions about the Red Sox ability to draft. He was a completely different pitcher post-TJ.
|
|
|