Red Sox Acquire Drew Pomeranz

[Bellhorn04]

A great salary dump can still be a great trade. In this case, it was 1000% necessary to clear the swamp (the thought that we could still be paying Carl Crawford gives me the heebie-jeebies), and doing so paved the way for the 2013 title by allowing us to add the likes of Napoli, Victorino, and the rest.

 

I wouldn't say we got nothing in return, either. It's easy to forget now, but De La Rosa and Webster were promising arms at one point, the former of which has stuck in the majors as a back-of-the-rotation type starter. Those two helped us get Miley, who had a decent season and then got us Carson Smith. I think the other two guys went to Pittsburgh in the Hanrahan/Holt deal.

 

Sorry Flap, I just can't get too excited about De La Rosa, Webster, Miley et al. The Holt pickup was very nice. But these are some real bit players we're talking about.

[Bellhorn04]

Flags fly forever.

 

Agreed. But you have to admit, the Cherington years go down as one of the weirdest stretches ever. One championship and 3 last place finishes, 2 of which were among the worst Red Sox seasons since the early Sixties, in spite of huge payrolls.

[User Name]

That's what happens when you have multiple people with different philosophies trying to call the shots.

[Jack Flap]

Sorry Flap, I just can't get too excited about De La Rosa, Webster, Miley et al. The Holt pickup was very nice. But these are some real bit players we're talking about.

 

Not disagreeing with that, but I'm not sure what more we could have expected. The LAD took on a ton of salary in that deal.

[Bellhorn04]

Not disagreeing with that, but I'm not sure what more we could have expected. The LAD took on a ton of salary in that deal.

 

Right. That's why I say it was no more than a salary dump. So then you have to trace what we did with the money. The 2013 free agent signings helped us win a title, which was great. But then came signings like Castillo and Pablo which were even worse than Crawford. A mixed bag to put it mildly.

[Hugh2]

Not disagreeing with that, but I'm not sure what more we could have expected. The LAD took on a ton of salary in that deal.

 

In hindsight they aren't exciting, but that's the problem with baseball, no one has a crystal ball and everyone is right/wrong at times in hindsight. They both had red flags but had really good potential too. You make that trade multiple times and sometimes you end up with a really really good pitcher.

 

The fact that they were afterthoughts from being able to dump Crawford and Beckett, and that allowed us to go out and sign Drew, Victorino, and Napoli and win a WS makes it an overall great trade in hindsight.

 

In a parallel universe somewhere, Crawford might of bounced back with Beckett and the Drew/Victorino/Napoli tandem skips their 2013 performance and goes right to 2014 and it's the worse trade in a long time.

[Dojji]

That's what happens when you have multiple people with different philosophies trying to call the shots.

 

And that's why BC was really fired. The fact of the matter is he was too inexperienced to hold the line against ownership and tell them no when they needed to be told no. The result was 3 rudderless disappointing seasons where it was tough to tell what the team was thinking. The decision to replace BC with a mature no-nonsense veteran was one of the most mature things I think I've ever seen ownership do. The direction of the team is now clear because one person is calling the shots on the roster and fielding ownership expectations without undue dithering.

 

BC was a very smart GM and he knew his baseball, but he was too wet behind the ears to get the job done here, the problem wasn't lack of knowledge it was lack of professional experience and maturity. Boston is a hell of a first posting as GM after all. He'll eventually sign on with some small market that will let him build things the way he wants to and make a great career for himself, gain the maturity he needs and who knows, maybe even be back in Boston when he's ready.

[Kimmi]

True. And its one of the reasons Theo Epstein has such a good club in Chicago right now. He didn't build that farm system. Someone else did, benefiting from some horrible finishes and good drafting of pick high in the pecking order.

 

Umm, no. What Theo did with the Cubs is an entirely different situation than what Dombrowski is doing now. What Theo did with the Cubs is what Ben was in the process of doing here, but was not allowed to follow it through to fruition.

 

Theo completely tore down that team and rebuilt it from the ground up. Dombrowski is taking 'spare' parts from the team that Theo and Ben built here to fill in the holes, something that I believe Ben would have done had he not been fired.

 

If I'm not mistaken, every player on the Cubs' active roster is a Theo acquisition over 5-6 years of building that team. Many of those were acquired by trading away, not prospects, but MLB active MLB players.

[Nick]

And that's why BC was really fired. The fact of the matter is he was too inexperienced to hold the line against ownership and tell them no when they needed to be told no. The result was 3 rudderless disappointing seasons where it was tough to tell what the team was thinking. The decision to replace BC with a mature no-nonsense veteran was one of the most mature things I think I've ever seen ownership do. The direction of the team is now clear because one person is calling the shots on the roster and fielding ownership expectations without undue dithering.

 

BC was a very smart GM and he knew his baseball, but he was too wet behind the ears to get the job done here, the problem wasn't lack of knowledge it was lack of professional experience and maturity. Boston is a hell of a first posting as GM after all. He'll eventually sign on with some small market that will let him build things the way he wants to and make a great career for himself, gain the maturity he needs and who knows, maybe even be back in Boston when he's ready.

 

This.....

[a700hitter]

Agreed. But you have to admit, the Cherington years go down as one of the weirdest stretches ever. One championship and 3 last place finishes, 2 of which were among the worst Red Sox seasons since the early Sixties, in spite of huge payrolls.

Those back to back last place finishes were the worst stretch since the 1930's. Ben's tenure maybe the weirdest of any GMs tenure for any organization.

[moonslav59]

Yeah, I realize I'm on somewhat shaky ground with that statement. The short-term benefits were definitely there. But did any of those benefits extend beyond 2013?

 

1) I thought the measurement of any trade to most, was did it lead to a ring?

2) Yes, the benefits went beyond 2013, but just because those (financial) benefits were squandered, does not mean the nothing was gained. Crawford was paid over $85M AFTER 2013.

3) AGon was also owed about $110M after 2013, so had we kept him along with CC, we'd be looking at about $200M in contractual costs with much less production than hoped for. (In hindsight, would you have signed AGon for $110M/5 back before 2014?)

 

[moonslav59]

In hindsight they aren't exciting, but that's the problem with baseball, no one has a crystal ball and everyone is right/wrong at times in hindsight. They both had red flags but had really good potential too. You make that trade multiple times and sometimes you end up with a really really good pitcher.

 

The fact that they were afterthoughts from being able to dump Crawford and Beckett, and that allowed us to go out and sign Drew, Victorino, and Napoli and win a WS makes it an overall great trade in hindsight.

 

In a parallel universe somewhere, Crawford might of bounced back with Beckett and the Drew/Victorino/Napoli tandem skips their 2013 performance and goes right to 2014 and it's the worse trade in a long time.

 

Personally, I don't measure trades by just how many, if any rings it brought you. That being said, I think the trade and the following signings did lead to a ring. I was against the Drew, Vic and Dempster signings. I liked the Napoli signings and re-signing. I loved the Uehara trade and extension. I hated the Pablo and HanRam signings from day one.

 

However, I do not view the poor signings as taking away from the greatness of the trade, just as I don't really judge the greatness of the trade by the 2013 ring. The trade gave us great financial freedom. That alone was a tremendous plus that makes it one of the top 3 Sox trades in my time as a Sox fan (1970>).

 

How we spent that money is another issue to a great extent.

 

[mvp 78]

The AGon trade allowed us to dump CC and Beckett, so that should be part of the final equation.

 

Would anyone take Rizzo, if you had to take CC and Beckett with him? Maybe, but it's not a no-brainer.

 

You're referencing the wrong AGon trade. The trade that dupree and A700 were talking about was the trade to bring him to the Red Sox, not the one to trade him to the Dodgers.

 

To me, they should have kept Rizzo and not signed Crawford. Signing Crawford to play LF is one of the most confusing signings of the past decade. Signing Pablo after already grabbing Hanley is a close second.

[moonslav59]

BC was a very smart GM and he knew his baseball, but he was too wet behind the ears to get the job done here, the problem wasn't lack of knowledge it was lack of professional experience and maturity. Boston is a hell of a first posting as GM after all. He'll eventually sign on with some small market that will let him build things the way he wants to and make a great career for himself, gain the maturity he needs and who knows, maybe even be back in Boston when he's ready.

 

I tend to cut Ben more slack than most, and here's why. I think Ben was clearly looking towards the long term- I called it a 5 year plan. He certainly made some horrible signings that were supposed to keep us somewhat competitive until the farm started driving our roster strength. That was his downfall, and I'm not going to try and sugar coat those bad signings. However, I did fully support the stinginess and reluctance to trade youth for immediate gratification.

 

Trades like the Kimbrel deal or some of the proposed Hamels deals would help us for 3-4 years, but they not only cost top prospects but also critical budget flexibility going forward. I think Ben's plan was to wait until the 2015-2016 winter to load up on pitching as that was a saturated pitching market. That is why he chose the 2014-2015 winter to load up on offense (HanRam & Pablo). The theory doesn't look unsound, but the execution was a failure on part I. Ben never got a chance to execute part II. I tend to think he'd have gone after Price as well, but probably not Kimbrel. I also think Ben would have eventually traded some top prospects, but we'll never know for sure, and we'll never know for whom he'd have traded for.

 

Ben never got to see his 5 year plan come to fruition. I can understand how 3 last place finishes justifies his firing. My sentiment is this: management must have been on board with Ben's 5 year plan, but they pulled the rug out before the plan was finished. I realize the plan and massive spending until the plan took effect was supposed to keep us competitive until the 5 years were up was an overall failure, despite the one ring in 2013.

[moonslav59]

You're referencing the wrong AGon trade. The trade that dupree and A700 were talking about was the trade to bring him to the Red Sox, not the one to trade him to the Dodgers.

 

To me, they should have kept Rizzo and not signed Crawford. Signing Crawford to play LF is one of the most confusing signings of the past decade. Signing Pablo after already grabbing Hanley is a close second.

 

No, I was referring to the Kelly/Rizzo trade for AGon that later allowed us to dump CC and Beckett. I doubt we would have been able to dump CC and Josh had we not had AGon.

 

Remember, Rizzo was still in the minors until the summer of 2012. I doubt the Dodgers would have taken Rizzo and Kelly instead of AGon with the salary dump package.

 

I clearly worded my post to say that the trade that brought us AGon allowed us to dump CC and Beckett, and that changes how we value the Kelly/Rizzo for AGon trade

 

[Bellhorn04]

No, I was referring to the Kelly/Rizzo trade for AGon that later allowed us to dump CC and Beckett. I doubt we would have been able to dump CC and Josh had we not had AGon.

 

Remember, Rizzo was still in the minors until the summer of 2012. I doubt the Dodgers would have taken Rizzo and Kelly instead of AGon with the salary dump package.

 

I clearly worded my post to say that the trade that brought us AGon allowed us to dump CC and Beckett, and that changes how we value the Kelly/Rizzo for AGon trade

 

2 entirely separate transactions that you are trying to connect.

 

Much like the money we saved on the Dodger Dump and how we spent that money, isn't it?

[mvp 78]

No, I was referring to the Kelly/Rizzo trade for AGon that later allowed us to dump CC and Beckett. I doubt we would have been able to dump CC and Josh had we not had AGon.

 

Remember, Rizzo was still in the minors until the summer of 2012. I doubt the Dodgers would have taken Rizzo and Kelly instead of AGon with the salary dump package.

 

I clearly worded my post to say that the trade that brought us AGon allowed us to dump CC and Beckett, and that changes how we value the Kelly/Rizzo for AGon trade

 

 

So we made a trade a week in advance in order to dump a guy that we had yet to sign. Um, ok... If we had signed AGon after CC, maybe you'd have a point.

[moonslav59]

So we made a trade a week in advance in order to dump a guy that we had yet to sign. Um, ok... If we had signed AGon after CC, maybe you'd have a point.

 

I never said we traded for AGon knowing we'd use him to dump other salaries. Clearly that was not my point or implication.

 

Without AGon, we don't get to dump CC and Beckett. The Dodgers wanted AGon and his bloated salary so much, they took on the massive salaries of those two clowns.

 

I think it's a valid point regardless of the order of trades and signings.

 

I get the fact that it is not a simple comparison when you combine future actions made... like saying we still have Carson Smith from that deal (RDLR+Webster> Miley>Smith), but there is some merit to making that point.

[Bellhorn04]

My position is simply that there is a big difference between a talent-for-talent trade and a salary dump. The Dodger transaction was a great salary dump, but I'll never think of it as a great trade.

 

By the same token, if I was a Blue Jays fan I'd think of getting Donaldson as a great trade, and getting rid of Vernon Wells as a great dump.

[mvp 78]

My position is simply that there is a big difference between a talent-for-talent trade and a salary dump. The Dodger transaction was a great salary dump, but I'll never think of it as a great trade.

 

By the same token, if I was a Blue Jays fan I'd think of getting Donaldson as a great trade, and getting rid of Vernon Wells as a great dump.

 

I agree. They could have dumped all of those salaries eventually anyway.

[moonslav59]

I agree. They could have dumped all of those salaries eventually anyway.

 

I seriously doubt anyone wanted CC without us having to pay 1/2 or 3/4 his salary.

 

Beckett might have been easier, but he had way less years left and at a lower cost than CC.

[Jack Flap]

Anywho, bringing this back to Pomeranz/Espinoza... here's another interesting read/perspective on the trade:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/did-the-red-sox-really-overpay-for-drew-pomeranz/

[mvp 78]

Anywho, bringing this back to Pomeranz/Espinoza... here's another interesting read/perspective on the trade:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/did-the-red-sox-really-overpay-for-drew-pomeranz/

 

Another great article from the Fangraphs Tribune. Love that place!

[mvp 78]

My only question is: where do we stand on Pomeranz's nickname remaining "Pom Pom?"

 

I'm out on that one.

[Bellhorn04]

'Pommelhorse' if he turns out to be a stud.

[Maxbialystock]

With all due respect to moonslav, I think that, for the naysayers to be right on this trade, Pomeranz, who for the first half of this season has been better than any of the Sox starters, especially on the road (away from Petco), basically has to collapse, need tommy john surgery or something, or Espinoza has to be at least a TOTL starter in the Pedro Martinez category (although Pedro didn't come through the Sox system, but Buchholz did.). And frankly, I think the odds are against either of those happening.

 

As for those other trades, I never understood why the Sox went after CC for so much money. Beckett for HanRam, on the other hand,paid off in 2007. Getting rid of CC, AGon, and Beckett in 2012 was both brilliant and lucky. I didn't like the acquisition of AGon, but liked him after I saw him play.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Maxbialystock

[mvp 78]

With all due respect to moonslav, I think that, for the naysayers to be right on this trade, Pomeranz, who for the first half of this season has been better than any of the Sox starters, especially on the road (away from Petco), basically has to collapse, need tommy john surgery or something, or Espinoza has to be at least a TOTL starter in the Pedro Martinez category (although Pedro didn't come through the Sox system, but Buchholz did.). And frankly, I think the odds are against either of those happening.

 

As for those other trades, I never understood why the Sox went after CC for so much money. Beckett for HanRam, on the other hand,paid off in 2007. Getting rid of CC, AGon, and Beckett in 2011 was both brilliant and lucky.

 

The conspiracy theory is that they brought in Valentine to upset the clubhouse so much so that they'd be forced to tear the whole team down.

[Jack Flap]

I have to ask, MVP (because I've been curious since I got here), what is your beef with Fangraphs? I sense there may be some backstory here that I am not privy to... lol.

[moonslav59]

With all due respect to moonslav, I think that, for the naysayers to be right on this trade, Pomeranz, who for the first half of this season has been better than any off the Sox starters, especially on the road (away from Petco), basically has to collapse, need tommy john surgery or something, or Espinoza has to be at least a TOTL starter in the Pedro Martinez category (although Pedro didn't come through the Sox system, but Buchholz did.). And frankly, I think the odds are against either of those happening.

 

As for those other trades, I never understood why the Sox went after CC for so much money. Beckett for HanRam, on the other hand,paid off in 2007. Getting rid of CC, AGon, and Beckett in 2012 was both brilliant and lucky. I didn't like the acquisition of AGon, but liked him after I saw him play.

 

I guess I just don't put as much stock in 8 road starts.

[Dojji]

The conspiracy theory is that they brought in Valentine to upset the clubhouse so much so that they'd be forced to tear the whole team down.

 

Frankly, if that's the conspiracy then I'm in favor of it, because it was clear that the old core was aging and the young core wasn't ready. The shocker was that the dregs and remnants of the old core, a handful of VERY green prospects and a few patched in pieces strung together a WS win in 2013 somehow.