Red Sox Acquire Drew Pomeranz

[Dojji]

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.

 

I think his beef is more with fWAR than FanGraphs itself, but of course MVP can speak for himself.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

A+ post. IMO, Henry panicked after the 2 last place finishes and didn't give Ben a chance to see his plan through. I agree with you that Ben would have been more aggressive this year in terms of acquiring starting pitching and trading some prospects.

[moonslav59]

A+ post. IMO, Henry panicked after the 2 last place finishes and didn't give Ben a chance to see his plan through. I agree with you that Ben would have been more aggressive this year in terms of acquiring starting pitching and trading some prospects.

 

I think keeping all of our top prospects would have created such a bottleneck that some sort of trade would have had to be made, even if only to create roster space.

 

I know many here must feel like I'm against trading prospects, because I was against the Kimbrel trade and the Pomeranz trade. It's funny, because I agreed with the prospects DD chose to trade for Kimbrel. Margot and Guerra were in a vast majority of my suggested prospect trades. My position was actually more radical than DD's, since I had suggested trading Margot, Guerra, Swihart and Devers (plus guys like Owens, Johnson, Marrero and others before their stock fell this year) over Margot, Guerra and Espinoza. I also was open to adding Holt or Kelly. I was looking for a huge mega deal, but I admit my suggestion might have been a pipe dream as I wanted someone like Sale, Gray, Kluber, Quintana or Salazar

[mvp 78]

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.

 

No beef. Fangraphs is a well respected site.

[Nick]

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

 

Best piece I've seen on Sox flipping Espinoza for Pomeranz

[mvp 78]

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

 

Best piece I've seen on Sox flipping Espinoza for Pomeranz

 

Yes, that is a very solid Fangraphs Tribune piece. I highly recommend it to everyone.

[moonslav59]

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

 

Best piece I've seen on Sox flipping Espinoza for Pomeranz

 

It does make me feel a little better about the trade, but I already viewed the trade as balancing one type of risk/reward vs another type of risk/reward.

 

Maybe I believe in Espi more than I should. I see his upside as higher than what this analysis shows.

 

I like Pomeranz and hope he works out. He's totally changing his environment going from a division of big/huge parks and no DH to the AL East under an immense spotlight.

[mvp 78]

Prospects tend to flame out, especially pitchers. If Pomeranz is solid for the next 2.5 years, it's a great deal.

[moonslav59]

Prospects tend to flame out, especially pitchers. If Pomeranz is solid for the next 2.5 years, it's a great deal.

 

Even if Espi goes on to have 5-7 great seasons with the Padres, it doesn't matter to you?

 

I get the reasoning in saying the Beckett/Lowell for HanRam/Sanchez trade worked for us (and FLA), but I'm not sure if Pomeranz is going to be a significant part of us winning a ring like Beckett and Lowell were.

[a700hitter]

Even if Espi goes on to have 5-7 great seasons with the Padres, it doesn't matter to you?

 

I get the reasoning in saying the Beckett/Lowell for HanRam/Sanchez trade worked for us (and FLA), but I'm not sure if Pomeranz is going to be a significant part of us winning a ring like Beckett and Lowell were.

It wouldn't matter to me because those 5-7 years will not start until 2021. The major league team needs to improve its starting pitching and waiting until 2020 and 2021 to improve it. We can thank Ben and to an extent Theo for the sorry ass state of our pitching.

[mvp 78]

Even if Espi goes on to have 5-7 great seasons with the Padres, it doesn't matter to you?

 

I get the reasoning in saying the Beckett/Lowell for HanRam/Sanchez trade worked for us (and FLA), but I'm not sure if Pomeranz is going to be a significant part of us winning a ring like Beckett and Lowell were.

 

That's a tremendous "IF." If Pomeranz pitches like a #2 for the next 2.5 years, I don't care what Espinoza does for the Padres.

[mvp 78]

It wouldn't matter to me because those 5-7 years will not start until 2021. The major league team needs to improve its starting pitching and waiting until 2020 and 2021 to improve it. We can thank Ben and to an extent Theo for the sorry ass state of our pitching.

 

It's the difference between rooting for the Red Sox and fantasy baseball. At the end of the day, I would like my pretend fantasy team to do well, but I'd rather the Sox win a title than my fantasy team. You don't hoard prospects because they are shiny new toys that you want to keep in the package because they may have value someday.

[Jack Flap]

Those types of arguments would make literally any prospect for "proven major leaguer" trade acceptable. I think there are rational and valid arguments in favor of the Pomeranz trade, but disregarding the value of prospects because we won't see them for a few years really isn't one of them.

[Kimmi]

I think keeping all of our top prospects would have created such a bottleneck that some sort of trade would have had to be made, even if only to create roster space.

 

I know many here must feel like I'm against trading prospects, because I was against the Kimbrel trade and the Pomeranz trade. It's funny, because I agreed with the prospects DD chose to trade for Kimbrel. Margot and Guerra were in a vast majority of my suggested prospect trades. My position was actually more radical than DD's, since I had suggested trading Margot, Guerra, Swihart and Devers (plus guys like Owens, Johnson, Marrero and others before their stock fell this year) over Margot, Guerra and Espinoza. I also was open to adding Holt or Kelly. I was looking for a huge mega deal, but I admit my suggestion might have been a pipe dream as I wanted someone like Sale, Gray, Kluber, Quintana or Salazar

 

I think we are more or less in agreement on these things, although I like the trade for Pomeranz, even though I believe we overpaid. IMO, it needed to be done.

 

I thought we largely overpaid for Kimbrel, especially when you also consider the salary that we are paying him. Like you, I felt like we should have added a bit more to the package and tried to get one of those starters you mention. However, it very well might have been a pipe dream.

[Kimmi]

No beef. Fangraphs is a well respected site.

 

:eek:

 

!!!

[mvp 78]

Those types of arguments would make literally any prospect for "proven major leaguer" trade acceptable. I think there are rational and valid arguments in favor of the Pomeranz trade, but disregarding the value of prospects because we won't see them for a few years really isn't one of them.

 

If Espinoza was in AA, you wouldn't trade him. Right now, he's just to far away to even project anything. Pitchers flame out more often than hitters. The Sox screwed up the rotation so bad (picking up Buchholz's option, relying on Kelly) that they basically forced this trade.

 

If they moved Espinoza for a rental, it would have been a horrible move. They moved him for a solid #2 guy who just pitched in the AS game.

[mvp 78]

I think we are more or less in agreement on these things, although I like the trade for Pomeranz, even though I believe we overpaid. IMO, it needed to be done.

 

I thought we largely overpaid for Kimbrel, especially when you also consider the salary that we are paying him. Like you, I felt like we should have added a bit more to the package and tried to get one of those starters you mention. However, it very well might have been a pipe dream.

 

Why do you think it's an overpay?

 

It seems like that is the going rate to acquire a pitcher like Pomeranz. Remember, the A's would only move Hill (injury guy, contract ends in October) for Espinoza.

[a700hitter]

Those types of arguments would make literally any prospect for "proven major leaguer" trade acceptable. I think there are rational and valid arguments in favor of the Pomeranz trade, but disregarding the value of prospects because we won't see them for a few years really isn't one of them.

I am not disregarding their value, but he stayed away from touching Moncado and Benintendi who are better prospects and closer to helping this team. DD had no choice but to obtain pitching from the outside if he wants this team to be competitive either this season or next season. If he didn't make this deal now, he would have to make a deal in the offseason. He could either pay now or pay later, but either way pitching needed to be obtained. This kid was just 18 and only in A ball. Before he makes an impact we may replace him in our organization with other top pitching prospects-- and we have with Groome. Hoarding prospect (most of which will not make it) makes no sense when they need to be used to fill current holes in the MLB roster.

[Kimmi]

Even if Espi goes on to have 5-7 great seasons with the Padres, it doesn't matter to you?

 

I get the reasoning in saying the Beckett/Lowell for HanRam/Sanchez trade worked for us (and FLA), but I'm not sure if Pomeranz is going to be a significant part of us winning a ring like Beckett and Lowell were.

 

Even if Pomeranz' on field performance is not a significant part of us winning a ring, there are also indirect effects that his signing brings to the team. For one, a stronger starting rotation, one that can eat innings and allow the manager to use his bullpen as designed rather than out of need, makes the BP stronger. For two, the message sent to the team by a trade like this is rather powerful, IMO.

 

If we win a ring in the next 3 years, the trade for Pomeranz will be worth it, even if Espinoza goes on to be a perennial All Star. It's the same way I feel about the Peavy trade. A bird in the hand...

[a700hitter]

I think we are more or less in agreement on these things, although I like the trade for Pomeranz, even though I believe we overpaid. IMO, it needed to be done.

.

It is arguable whether it was an overpay. Only time will tell. But we agree that it needed to be done.

[Kimmi]

Those types of arguments would make literally any prospect for "proven major leaguer" trade acceptable. I think there are rational and valid arguments in favor of the Pomeranz trade, but disregarding the value of prospects because we won't see them for a few years really isn't one of them.

 

This is very true. I like the trade overall, but we cannot discount the long term impact of any trade, even if that impact is 5 years away. To this point, I don't think that Dombrowski has really hurt our farm system, thanks to how strong it was to begin with.

[a700hitter]

For two, the message sent to the team by a trade like this is rather powerful, IMO.

I agree. The message to the team cannot be overlooked. If the FO reinforces the roster it sends a message that the FO believes in the team's chances and that they are willing to help get the team what it needs. When the FO doesn't address glaring needs, it sends a message to the team that the FO is giving up on the season.

[Kimmi]

Why do you think it's an overpay?

 

It seems like that is the going rate to acquire a pitcher like Pomeranz. Remember, the A's would only move Hill (injury guy, contract ends in October) for Espinoza.

 

Fair enough point about it reportedly being the going rate. I'm thinking in terms up potential value given up (WAR/dollars) versus value received. I understand that it will be a long time before for full value of this trade is known.

[moonslav59]

Even if Pomeranz' on field performance is not a significant part of us winning a ring, there are also indirect effects that his signing brings to the team. For one, a stronger starting rotation, one that can eat innings and allow the manager to use his bullpen as designed rather than out of need, makes the BP stronger. For two, the message sent to the team by a trade like this is rather powerful, IMO.

 

If we win a ring in the next 3 years, the trade for Pomeranz will be worth it, even if Espinoza goes on to be a perennial All Star. It's the same way I feel about the Peavy trade. A bird in the hand...

 

I did not think Peavy was an essential element of our 2013 ring, but it is debatable.

 

Iggy has more or less flopped with Detroit, perhaps due to injuries, so the comp is not exactly the same as what the Espi comp may be.

 

I get your point about Pomerannz not needing to do great to make an impact on the pen, but I'm not one that values immediate gratification over the longer view.

 

I get the risk/reward factors associated with both of these guys, and I realize I may be higher on Espi than he deserves, but I look at 4-7 years of team control vs 2.4 and I have a hard time balancing that out.

 

It's not about Pomeranz, although there are risks associated with him too. I don't mind waiting for greatness. I don't mind the fact that sometimes these guys lay eggs. I don't compare Espi to Casey Kelly, Bowden, Owens, Johnson or TBall. I know he is far away, and that adds to the risk, but this kid has done so well vs players much older than him, I feel his upside is higher than many think it is.

 

[moonslav59]

I agree. The message to the team cannot be overlooked. If the FO reinforces the roster it sends a message that the FO believes in the team's chances and that they are willing to help get the team what it needs. When the FO doesn't address glaring needs, it sends a message to the team that the FO is giving up on the season.

 

Yeah, that's true, and fans rarely notice that the long term viability of a team's success is being compromised by a here and now mentality.

 

I realize we still have several top prospects and young studs, but it sometimes is hard to look deeper into the future.

 

What worries me is that the rules are changing to make it harder for rich teams to stock their farm with better prospects. We look to be a winning team for several years to come, so top draft picks might be a thing of the past. Groome might be our last top pick for years. We have a penalty on international signings right now.

 

I liked the idea of keeping our far away prospects to help fill a probable void 4-8 years from now.

 

I plan on being a Sox fan until I die. I'm hoping that is much farther away than 4-8 years.

 

I'm not torn up by this deal. I'm happy we get 2.4 years from Pomeranz not 0.4 from Hill.

[a700hitter]

Yeah, that's true, and fans rarely notice that the long term viability of a team's success is being compromised by a here and now mentality.

 

I realize we still have several top prospects and young studs, but it sometimes is hard to look deeper into the future.

 

What worries me is that the rules are changing to make it harder for rich teams to stock their farm with better prospects. We look to be a winning team for several years to come, so top draft picks might be a thing of the past. Groome might be our last top pick for years. We have a penalty on international signings right now.

 

I liked the idea of keeping our far away prospects to help fill a probable void 4-8 years from now.

 

I plan on being a Sox fan until I die. I'm hoping that is much farther away than 4-8 years.

 

I'm not torn up by this deal. I'm happy we get 2.4 years from Pomeranz not 0.4 from Hill.

This trade in no way will affect the long term viability of this team. No prospect or group of prospects is essential to the future of the team. It is the job of the FO to make sure that the farm will periodically fill the needs of the MLB team. Tearing your hair out about this or any other trade of prospects is unwarranted drama.

[SoxnCycles]

Yeah, that's true, and fans rarely notice that the long term viability of a team's success is being compromised by a here and now mentality.

 

I realize we still have several top prospects and young studs, but it sometimes is hard to look deeper into the future.

 

What worries me is that the rules are changing to make it harder for rich teams to stock their farm with better prospects. We look to be a winning team for several years to come, so top draft picks might be a thing of the past. Groome might be our last top pick for years. We have a penalty on international signings right now.

 

I liked the idea of keeping our far away prospects to help fill a probable void 4-8 years from now.

 

I plan on being a Sox fan until I die. I'm hoping that is much farther away than 4-8 years.

 

I'm not torn up by this deal. I'm happy we get 2.4 years from Pomeranz not 0.4 from Hill.

 

 

Yup, same here.

It's not difficult, if Pomeranz pitches as well as he did in the first half of the season for SD for the rest of this year and for the length of his contract, it'll be a good deal.

If he struggles in Fenway, or hits the wall and we have to rest him in Sept or, even worse, in Oct, then the Sox got screwed.

[mvp 78]

Fair enough point about it reportedly being the going rate. I'm thinking in terms up potential value given up (WAR/dollars) versus value received. I understand that it will be a long time before for full value of this trade is known.

 

But if you worry about "potential value," you'd never trade any prospect because the future is uncertain.

[mvp 78]

Yup, same here.

It's not difficult, if Pomeranz pitches as well as he did in the first half of the season for SD for the rest of this year and for the length of his contract, it'll be a good deal.

If he struggles in Fenway, or hits the wall and we have to rest him in Sept or, even worse, in Oct, then the Sox got screwed.

 

And if they didn't trade for a SP and Espinoza flames out, they'd be just as screwed.

[SoxnCycles]

And if they didn't trade for a SP and Espinoza flames out, they'd be just as screwed.

 

That's why I didn't say it was a bad trade.

 

One more time, it's possible for it to be an acceptable trade and say it was an overpay.