moonslav59

Moonslav,

 

You throw out a lot of trade proposals & seem to include Brock Holt in all of them. The guy is a manager's dream for any team in contention, not necessarily for a team rebuilding, and everything I've seen, read & heard backs that up.

 

Supposedly a lot of contending teams asked about Holt during last off season, and they had no inteterest in moving him. If they didn't move him then, why would they now? Why do you want to trade this guy so bad? He gives any team a ton of flexibilty and does it with a great attitude.

Many poster suggest trades with players nobody wants.

Many posters assume that when another poster suggests trading one of our good players, it means they undervalue that player.

I think I value Holt, Swihart and Devers as much as the average Sox fan, but I want something very special in return, so we have to give to get. Here's my thinking in a nutshell:

Holt is not as valuable to the Sox after Papi retires and we no longer have one of our roster spots filled by a DH only player.

IMO, Holt is not a plus fielder at 3B, SS, 1B and maybe even OF.

I really like Hernandez, and we also have Rutledge, Marrero, and others as our subs going forward.

We will need some roster space on the 25 man roster for Moncada & Beni and maybe even Travis. We may also want to keep Leon and Vazquez as our catchers and Swihart as our #3 C and platoon LF'er/corner IF'er. That will mean we need an extra roster space. Havings a third catcher gives us a lot of flexibility that Holt ca not give us as we can PH for our catchers. (Of course if we trade Holt and Swihart that won't be the case.)

Different radar guns in the AL.

Just kiddin'

So far this year that guy has been Steven Wright.

and Porcello.

So like his AAA performance last year then?

Yes, I think so, although it's hard to judge when a player is "over" anxiety.

Let's not judge Pom Pom based on 1 start.

Remember, SF was the best team in MLB before facing us.

Why not? The spot was open in the first few weeks. It was Pomeranz who requested the opportunity to start. If he had shown the ability to start in spring training, Dombrowski/Farrell have shown the willingness to give new guys a chance.

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.

No, I get it. There are some serious concerns with Pomeranz. I just don't believe this was an overpay. It seems like there aren't any pitchers available that don't have any concerns.

 

It all goes back to the point that it's easier to find pitching in the offseason and they should have grabbed another guy then.

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

He's been a reliable reliever for the most part since 6/1/15. That's more than we can say for most guys we've thrown out there.

...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.

Would the twins trade santana for buchholz straight up? It would be like a salary dump for them. Do we have to add a prospect?

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.

Why would Guerra be that high? He's fallen off a cliff this year.

 

Maybe I'm just confused by your rankings as they list Groome and Kopech twice...

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.

Pomeranz is Red Sox property for two years after this one. It's a move for long-term improvement. Saying otherwise is silly.

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.

So if every trade for a SP is an "overpay," maybe none of them are overpays? Maybe that's closer to market rate?

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.

Based on the asking price around MLB for starters.

 

Braves wanted Moncada and Espinoza and more for Teheran. A's wanted Espinoza for 4 months of Hill.

 

I can imagine that this trade was the best value out there.

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.

And maybe the lack of use is why he blew up on the 2nd?

 

Farrell's use of the bullpen is definitely a concern for me.

Me too.

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

But you claimed "he's going through a rough patch."

 

How is that a rough patch exactly?

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

He also has a 4.50 ERA over the past 14 days.

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

LOL!

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.

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.

He has 1 Quality Start in his past 4 outings. This break out may be running out of time.

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.