Red Sox Acquire Drew Pomeranz

[Jack Flap]

I doubt they offer any relief to the Sox this offseason as well, but that doesn't make it right.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

Additional compensation would send a message.

 

How about the Sox get another prospect back.

Maybe Espinoza!

 

I think getting Espinoza back and sending them someone like Henry Owens in place of Pomeranz would be fair, though I can also see why that wouldn't happen; if not, I'd settle for a draft pick of some sort.

 

I just don't buy that the league could take away already-signed prospects from the Red Sox in the international affair earlier this year, but couldn't find any way to compensate them in this case. The Padres screwed several teams and still got out of this very, very easily.

[moonslav59]

True, but since it was after the trade deadline they were screwed either way.

 

The trade was actually made on July 14th, but I don't think we found out about the nondisclosure until after the deadline, so we were basically boxed in.

[mvp 78]

True, but since it was after the trade deadline they were screwed either way.

 

I agree with that. I just don't see MLB doing anything further about this.

 

Shouldn't Pomeranz have told the Sox trainers what treatments he had received in San Diego the second he came here?

[S5Dewey]

The only way the league can deal with this is to no longer trade with the Padres.

 

It would seem that MLB should somehow penalize the Padres for trading 'damaged goods'. By not intervening MLB has made the trade market into a "Let the buyer beware" bazaar (not to be confused with 'bizarre', which is what this situation is).

 

I fail to understand how MLB can penalize the Sox for doing what everyone else does in the International market and then turn a blind eye to a team's blatantly disregarding MLB rules about reporting treatment for players.

[mvp 78]

It would seem that MLB should somehow penalize the Padres for trading 'damaged goods'. By not intervening MLB has made the trade market into a "Let the buyer beware" bazaar (not to be confused with 'bizarre', which is what this situation is).

 

I fail to understand how MLB can penalize the Sox for doing what everyone else does in the International market and then turn a blind eye to a team's blatantly disregarding MLB rules about reporting treatment for players.

 

They already punished the Padres for this.

 

What the Sox did must have been doing was so brazen and beyond the pale that they needed to make an example out of them.

[Wade Boggs]

The trade was actually made on July 14th, but I don't think we found out about the nondisclosure until after the deadline, so we were basically boxed in.

 

What about the Red Sox getting SD 1st rd pick this year or next. MLB can decide that on the merit of their own choosing. The 'box in' theory will not apply for a punishment of that nature.

[a700hitter]

What the Red Sox were doing in the DR was widespread, corrupt, and possibly criminal. It doesn't equate to what SD did.

[S5Dewey]

They already punished the Padres for this.

 

What the Sox did must have been doing was so brazen and beyond the pale that they needed to make an example out of them.

 

Here's the way it came down as I understand it: the only "punishment" handed out was a one month suspension of the GM. That's not punishing the team, it's punishing the manager, and it does nothing to undo the wrong perpetrated on the Red Sox.

 

What the Sox did in the International signings was what teams have been doing for years - they signed the players to a 'wink-wink' agreement for certain amounts of money, then gave the total amount of the signings to an 'agent' who distributed the money differently, giving more than was allowed to the higher rated players. They "laundered" the money through the agent.

No doubt that if they knew about it before the money was distributed - and I believe they did - it was unscrupulous, but it's been a common practice.

 

I agree that it was done to make an example of 'someone', but it sticks in my craw that they chose to make an example of the Sox in that situation and essentially let the Padres go free in another equally unscrupulous situation that involved Boston.

[mvp 78]

Here's the way it came down as I understand it: the only "punishment" handed out was a one month suspension of the GM. That's not punishing the team, it's punishing the manager, and it does nothing to undo the wrong perpetrated on the Red Sox.

 

What the Sox did in the International signings was what teams have been doing for years - they signed the players to a 'wink-wink' agreement for certain amounts of money, then gave the total amount of the signings to an 'agent' who distributed the money differently, giving more than was allowed to the higher rated players. They "laundered" the money through the agent.

No doubt that if they knew about it before the money was distributed - and I believe they did - it was unscrupulous, but it's been a common practice.

 

I agree that it was done to make an example of 'someone', but it sticks in my craw that they chose to make an example of the Sox in that situation and essentially let the Padres go free in another equally unscrupulous situation that involved Boston.

 

And maybe the commissioners office decided to be lenient on the Padres since maybe other teams hide injuries prior to trades as well?

 

I think the Sox were being more unscrupulous than the Padres were and it's not really close.

[sk7326]

Here's the way it came down as I understand it: the only "punishment" handed out was a one month suspension of the GM. That's not punishing the team, it's punishing the manager, and it does nothing to undo the wrong perpetrated on the Red Sox.

 

What the Sox did in the International signings was what teams have been doing for years - they signed the players to a 'wink-wink' agreement for certain amounts of money, then gave the total amount of the signings to an 'agent' who distributed the money differently, giving more than was allowed to the higher rated players. They "laundered" the money through the agent.

No doubt that if they knew about it before the money was distributed - and I believe they did - it was unscrupulous, but it's been a common practice.

 

I agree that it was done to make an example of 'someone', but it sticks in my craw that they chose to make an example of the Sox in that situation and essentially let the Padres go free in another equally unscrupulous situation that involved Boston.

 

They were punished because somebody dropped a dime on them - something which has largely not happened in other cases. Other teams have been violating these rules, but there was no way for the league to prove it. This time, there was an informant.

 

The hard thing with the Padres case was that the Padres did not actually violate any hard rules - they violated essentially long standing practice (IIRC) which is uncool, but a lower threshhold. If the market wants to punish them, they can.

[S5Dewey]

They were punished because somebody dropped a dime on them - something which has largely not happened in other cases. Other teams have been violating these rules, but there was no way for the league to prove it. This time, there was an informant.

 

The hard thing with the Padres case was that the Padres did not actually violate any hard rules - they violated essentially long standing practice (IIRC) which is uncool, but a lower threshhold. If the market wants to punish them, they can.

 

Ok. Thanks. I didn't know there was a rat involved.

[SoxnCycles]

No, it doesn't.

 

 

 

I think getting Espinoza back and sending them someone like Henry Owens in place of Pomeranz would be fair, though I can also see why that wouldn't happen; if not, I'd settle for a draft pick of some sort.

 

I just don't buy that the league could take away already-signed prospects from the Red Sox in the international affair earlier this year, but couldn't find any way to compensate them in this case. The Padres screwed several teams and still got out of this very, very easily.

 

I would not be surprised of the commissioner is waiting for the off season to award the Sox an additional low-level prospect or draft pick, to try to compensate them.

[Dojji]

Is this a good time to reiterate that I'm still pretty satisfied with what we got out of Pomeranz? We needed a #4 starter, and we got a #4 starter. He gave us 100 ERA+ -- literally average, which for a 3-4 starter is almost exactly right. Unless he winds up needing surgery, people are overreacting a little IMHO. If he does wind up needing surgery I'll light my torch and join the mob, until then, considering both average production in 2016 and reasonable chances to improve on it in 17 and 18, I'm not upset with the Pomeranz acquisition at all.

[Bellhorn04]

Is this a good time to reiterate that I'm still pretty satisfied with what we got out of Pomeranz? We needed a #4 starter, and we got a #4 starter. He gave us 100 ERA+ -- literally average, which for a 3-4 starter is almost exactly right. Unless he winds up needing surgery, people are overreacting a little IMHO. If he does wind up needing surgery I'll light my torch and join the mob, until then, considering both average production in 2016 and reasonable chances to improve on it in 17 and 18, I'm not upset with the Pomeranz acquisition at all.

 

I wasn't upset until I learned it was his elbow he was receiving treatment for.

[Spudboy]

Is this a good time to reiterate that I'm still pretty satisfied with what we got out of Pomeranz? We needed a #4 starter, and we got a #4 starter. He gave us 100 ERA+ -- literally average, which for a 3-4 starter is almost exactly right. Unless he winds up needing surgery, people are overreacting a little IMHO. If he does wind up needing surgery I'll light my torch and join the mob, until then, considering both average production in 2016 and reasonable chances to improve on it in 17 and 18, I'm not upset with the Pomeranz acquisition at all.

 

Your assessment is reasonable.

 

This all make me think of Jake Peavey. People give him a lot of credit for "stabilizing the rotation". Ugh. That's not what I remember seeing from him. He did pitch some innings, I'll give him that.

 

Pom has done about the same with signs that he could become even better. He's young and cheap, too.

 

I wonder how their stats with the Sox in their first year look "side by each" ( live next to Rhode Island!!! ).

[Dojji]

I wasn't upset until I learned it was his elbow he was receiving treatment for.

 

It's a concern. Like I said, if he winds up needing surgery I'll join the hatefest against Padres management with a will. But we don't know that yet, and worrying about it is borrowing trouble right now.

[mvp 78]

It's a concern. Like I said, if he winds up needing surgery I'll join the hatefest against Padres management with a will. But we don't know that yet, and worrying about it is borrowing trouble right now.

 

Well, do you want a pitchfork or not?!?

[Jack Flap]

My main issue with the trade all along was that I don't think trading a top 20 prospect for a middle-of-the-rotation starter is good practice, but beyond that it's still far too early to make much of a judgement about the trade.

 

So far from Pom we have a great August, bad September (possibly attributable to fatigue), and not being able to start in October (though he could still be a factor out of the pen). What we get from him in 2017-18 will make all the difference.

[Spudboy]

My main issue with the trade all along was that I don't think trading a top 20 prospect for a middle-of-the-rotation starter is good practice, but beyond that it's still far too early to make much of a judgement about the trade.

 

So far from Pom we have a great August, bad September (possibly attributable to fatigue), and not being able to start in October (though he could still be a factor out of the pen). What we get from him in 2017-18 will make all the difference.

 

Probably not in most circumstances.

 

However, the Sox were in a bind with 4-5 starters and had a team that showed enough to be considered playoff bound anyway. They had to get someone.

 

The timing hurt price wise. But hey, if you want to play you got to pay.

 

Pom has good upside, too. He is also cheap and still young enough to improve dramatically.

[moonslav59]

My main issue with the trade all along was that I don't think trading a top 20 prospect for a middle-of-the-rotation starter is good practice, but beyond that it's still far too early to make much of a judgement about the trade.

 

So far from Pom we have a great August, bad September (possibly attributable to fatigue), and not being able to start in October (though he could still be a factor out of the pen). What we get from him in 2017-18 will make all the difference.

 

What SD gets from Espi from 2019 to 2024 will make all the difference.

[mvp 78]

What SD gets from Espi from 2019 to 2024 will make all the difference.

 

What if he provides them nothing? We could still say "well, if the Sox held onto Espinoza a little longer they could have spun him into an even better pitcher."

[Nick]

What SD gets from Espi from 2019 to 2024 will make all the difference.

 

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. We live in present. Tell me how YOU can go into the Sox club house and face 25 men and tell them "sorry, I'm not going to give up a kid that may or may not be good until 2019. If we lose this year, so be it. f*** you guys and all your best seasons. Nope, I'm protecting my top 3 prospect. Go with what we got' If I'm one of the players, I would deck you in a heartbeat.

[sk7326]

What SD gets from Espi from 2019 to 2024 will make all the difference.

 

Not really - the deal made sense because the teams were on two different timelines. The question is whether Pomeranz is any good - we traded a highly valued asset because we thought Pomeranz was good and would be better than that.

[sk7326]

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. We live in present. Tell me how YOU can go into the Sox club house and face 25 men and tell them "sorry, I'm not going to give up a kid that may or may not be good until 2019. If we lose this year, so be it. f*** you guys and all your best seasons. Nope, I'm protecting my top 3 prospect. Go with what we got' If I'm one of the players, I would deck you in a heartbeat.

 

That is why players do not make these decisions. First responsibility is to the org, both this year and the 3-5 year plans. The Sox made the deal because they thought Pomeranz would be better now, yes - but also better in the next few years. The truth of that is an open question.

[moonslav59]

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. We live in present. Tell me how YOU can go into the Sox club house and face 25 men and tell them "sorry, I'm not going to give up a kid that may or may not be good until 2019. If we lose this year, so be it. f*** you guys and all your best seasons. Nope, I'm protecting my top 3 prospect. Go with what we got' If I'm one of the players, I would deck you in a heartbeat.

 

1) Trading Espi was not the only option.

2) I have never shied away from trading prospects for vets.

3) 3 years from now will be the f***ING PRESENT!

[moonslav59]

Not really - the deal made sense because the teams were on two different timelines. The question is whether Pomeranz is any good - we traded a highly valued asset because we thought Pomeranz was good and would be better than that.

 

I never said the deal did not make sense, but that is different from thinking the trade was good or not, or deciding on what the criteria is for evaluating the trade years from now.

 

Pomeranz certainly improves our outlook for the next two years. His low contractual cost will affect other deals we can make as well. He projects to have a positive influence on the team for two years more.

 

Espinoza is a rare prospect who cracked the top 15 at very young age. Many hold his age against him due to the long time it might take for him to make a difference, and the increased uncertainty that he even will make it, but the flip side is that when a player of his age makes it that high in the rankings, it is because he has phenomenal upside potential.

 

If that upside potential is reached, we will regret making the trade.

 

His performance matters in the judgement.

[moonslav59]

What if he provides them nothing? We could still say "well, if the Sox held onto Espinoza a little longer they could have spun him into an even better pitcher."

 

Could happen.

 

What if PomPom provides nothing?

[moonslav59]

We live in present.

 

I'm glad, when the "present" was 3-6 years ago, we didn't trade Betts, Bogey and JBJ.

[mvp 78]

Could happen.

 

What if PomPom provides nothing?

 

He's already provided something.

[Nick]

We live in present.

 

I'm glad, when the "present" was 3-6 years ago, we didn't trade Betts, Bogey and JBJ.

 

Now you are just being a smart ass.....

 

We have a young core group going foward. I don't want to trade Moncada, Beni nor Swihart, unless it's for someone like Sales.

 

We needed a starting pitcher. I trust DD more than anyone on this board. You may disagree but he did what he needed to do.

Many here thought DD was going to trade the entire farm system last winter and this year. It did not happen. He has shown restraint, maturity and efficiency.

 

WE ARE IN THE PLAYOFFS CONTENDING FOR WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. You of course would rather have kept Espy and not participate in this year's playoffs. I got it.

 

Hey, maybe you will be proven right. This may rival the Babe Ruth giveaway.