moonslav59

Let's not judge Pom Pom based on 1 start. Remember, SF was the best team in MLB before facing us.

We could have taken 2 months to convert him back to a SP'er, if needed. I know he developed another pitch. We know he's had a nice 17 starts or so this year. But, if this guy is as good as many feel he is, shouldn't someone have noticed that potential just 4-5 short months ago.

If Santana is as good as some here seem to think he is, why aren't teams "lining up" to get him?

Agreed, and wonder of wonders, Pomeranz was available for pennies on the dollar just months ago.

...and since the vast majority of RPer's are up and down, I'll choose the guy on a good streak and hope he's not due for a down tick.

I can't imagine there isn't some team out there willing to take on Santana's full contract and give up a decent prospect. It's not like Santana is grossly overpaid. At FA prices, he might even be considered a bargain. I would think, if we traded for Santana, Buchholz would be for partial salary relief as Buch is still owed about $6M counting the buyout for 2017. The Twins should demand a prospect or two- maybe Owens. I wouldn't make the trade, because I want better than Santana, ven if i have to wait until this winter. If ERod implodes the next two starts, I might change my mind.

LOL, I'll go back and edit. on Guerra, I don't generally rise or drop prospects based on a half season of doing well or falling off a cliff.

It's silly ignoring the fact that I clearly wrote, "I love the fact that Pomeranz is under control for 2 more years at a low cost." My point has been I prefer the higher risk/reward of 4-7 years of Espi vs the risk/reward of 2.4 years of Pomeranz. I like Pomeranz. The odds are great that he helps this team in a very significant way for 2.4 years. I even mentioned how his low financial cost may help us upgrade at other positions in better ways. Yes, 2.4 years can be viewed as "long term". It certainly beats 0.4 years fo Hill. However, 4-7 years is even longer term.

Yes, in theory, but if the end result shows the players traded away do better than the players received over the long view, then one can argue empirically, that he deal was an "overpay". It's the same with signing big-named FAs. Ultimately, they are worth what someone is willing to give them, but a great number of them don't come close to meeting projected production expectations. To me, it's an "overpay". I'm not saying "overpays" are never advisable. I was okay with the Price overpay. I liked the Beckett extension. I liked the Porcello extension. I've been wrong like many GMs have been on when to selectively decide now is the time to overpay. When teams continuously "overpay" it usually comes back to bite them in the ass. The Yanks paid the price. We paid the price. The Dodgers have yet to hit paydirt.

Sometimes the "best out there" is still not enough. I get the win now, while Papi is still here idea. I love the fact that Pomeranz is under control for 2 more years at a low cost. I still think Espinoza was an overpay. It's not a gross overpay due to the risks involved with Espi's projected future, but I'd rather have 4-7 years of team control with Espi vs 2.4 of Pomeranz.

You hear the word "overpay" on almost every trade for a good SP'er. There are a few that say otherwise. You here "it was a necessary overpay" a lot as well. To me, that speaks to the "immediate gratification" mentality that seems to dominate our current culture.

Just Devers? Maybe someone like Pomeranz. My idea is to go bigger. I love Swihart and Devers, but I see Swihart's value as a FT catcher for another team as being greater than a part time C/LF'er corner iF'er with us. I see Moncada being groomed to play 3B soon, so Devers may end up blocked. I like Holt, but with PAPi retiring, the need for a super sub is not quite as important. I've given up on Owens and Johnson, and normally hate selling low. I'm not even sure they have much value to other GMs, but I'd love to see what we could get for Swihart, Devers, Holts and one or two from Owens/Johnson/TBall. I doubt we could get Sale or Quintana or Salazar or Carrasco. I'm sure we couldn't get Sale or Kluber. We'd probably have to add Travis or Kopech to get Gray. To be honest, I've racked my brain trying to find the perfect fit for my suggested offer. I'm not sure anyone is out there that suits my wishes. I'm not for handing these guys away for the best we can get, if that guy isn't way better than guys like Pomeranz or Santana.

Me too. I remember hearing talk about why Ross seemed to be in the doghouse, even though he was doing well.

Depends on how many games you go back. That one bad game is one hell of a rough patch. A couple games before than was a bad game. Certainly, if you start the sample size right after that horrible game, he's not struggling at all. 5.2 IP 3H 0 BB 0 ER is fantastic. I found it puzzling that Jf seemed to be ignoring Ross for a stretch before that blow up game. From June 8th to July 2nd, he only pitched 6 times. From June 12th to July 2nd he only pitched in 5 games.

I'd like to have Santana in case ERod struggles continue. Its' the $26M over the next 2 years that scares me. He's not a bad pitcher to have for 2016-2017, but I'm tired of "not bad" pitchers in our rotation. I'd like to take that $13M luxury tax hit, add some more money to it, and get a better pitcher than Santana this winter. If that is not an option, I wouldn't mind trading Swihart, Devers, Holt and a mid level prospect for a better pitcher than Santana who gets paid less than $13M a year. Then, take the saving and apply it towards offers for Encarnacion and/or a couple decent RP'ers.

Our projected #1-4 relievers are currently injured, though Tazawa should be back soon. I'm assuming you mean before the year started. Kimbrel Uehara C Smith Tazawa ON SP'ing, we also lost ERod to injury and struggles, Buch to struggles, Kelly to struggles & Injury, Johnson to anxiety, Owens & Elias to struggles. This staff looks nothing like pre-season projections. Maybe this was what many felt our 12 man staff would be: SP1) Price SP2) Porcello SP3) ERod SP4) Buchholz SP5) Kelly Swing) Wright/Owens/Elias Closer) Kimbrel RP2) Uehara RP3) Smith RP4) Tazawa RP5) Ross RP6) Layne RP7) Workman/Ramirez/Hembree

True, but he had a 0.00 ERA from June 16th to 24th. That wasn't so far away. LOL!

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.

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.

He has appeared to struggle a bit lately, but hand-picking a sample size to highlight a struggle can go two ways: here's one for you... In the last 14 days, Wright has a 0.667 WHIP.

I mentioned that one bad outing.

Agreed. I think the sample sizes I used were the most recent 4 and most recent 7 seasons. Santana's overall history and his 2016 season clearly makes him the much better pitcher.

Imagine our top prospect list had we kept Margot, Guerra, Allen, Basabe, Espi and others! Imagine if Swihart wasn't forced into losing his prospect status! Maybe.... 1. Moncada 2. Swihart 3. Benintendi 4. Espinoza 5. Margot 6. Devers 7. Groome 8. Kopech 9. Guerra 10. Travis 11. Basabe 12. Hernandez 13. Basabe 14. Dubon 15. Ockimey (Edited)

I like Ross too, but he's going through a rough patch, and now might not be the time to thrust him into pressure situations. Last 28 days: 9 IP 11 H 3 BB 1.56 WHIP (not counting 1 HBP) 8 ER 8.00 ERA 4.07 BAbip might explain some of it. He also let up 6 of those 8 ERs in one game (0.1 IP) Since June 1st, he's let up 10 ERs, 13 Hits and 4 BBs in 12 IP.

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.