Jack Flap

Price was not good last night, but when we lose a 3-1 game my first instinct is generally not to blame the starting pitcher. Tanaka was sharp and the back of the Yankees' pen is just unfair. That's what happened last night. I'll take the series win on the road.

Agree, Hugh. The lumping of all prospects together as if they all carry the same degree of risk and reward, or as if what happened with prospect A five years ago has any bearing on what we should do with prospect B, is something of a pet peeve of mine.

LOL...that wasn't exactly my intent, but it does sound like Beane overplayed his hand here with crazy demands, driving the Red Sox (who probably could have cobbled together a pretty good package for Hill, albeit not one of the game's top prospects) to seek other options.

Definitely. I'd rather deal with the Michael Bowdens, Lars Andersons, and Garin Cecchinis of the world not working out than trade away the next Bogaerts, Betts, or Bradley and have it come back to haunt you. Also, not that it probably matters, but I really doubt Owens was ever an "untouchable" piece in our system. He was a good, not elite, pitching prospect for a few years, but not every guy that we liked and didn't end up trading was untouchable. No one knows what Ben might have been offered for Owens at some point...I'd have included him in a Hamels trade scenario without much second thought, but he would not have been the only piece going.

...with extreme prejudice.

Man, that is some Buchholz-level bad injury timing. It will really suck for the A's if they can't get a good return for him because he's hurt. I'd have liked to have gotten Hill if the price had been reasonable, but it doesn't sound like it was ever going to be, and I can't say I'm sorry that we're not betting our season on him staying healthy.

Agreed. Johnson threw 5 shutout innings in a rehab start in Lowell the other day as well. It's disappointing that neither has been able to help us so far this year, but I haven't given up on either of them.

For what it's worth, the Sox are still scouting Hill: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/07/latest-on-athletics.html

I think this idea is coming from the quote below...no, he didn't specifically talk about Oakland or Hill, but you can read between the lines: http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/07/14/dave-dombrowski-details-why-red-sox-traded-for-drew-pomeranz/ A lot of the arguments in favor of this deal have been based around the idea that we weren't going to get a decent pitcher -- even a rental -- without giving up Espinoza, which I don't believe. Fortunately, unless Oakland inexplicably holds on to Hill and the Phillies do the same with Hellickson, we will soon be able to see what it took to land them, and to estimate what a similar package from the Red Sox would have looked like. Same for any other pitcher that may change hands between now and August 1st.

Hill is a 2-3 month rental. Beane can ask for whatever he wants, but he basically has to trade Hill, and there is zero chance he ends up with an Espinoza-quality prospect for him. None.

I haven't seen this posted before - apologies if it has - but here's Brian Bannister's thoughts on Pomeranz: http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/john-tomase/2016/07/16/concerned-about-drew-pomeranzs-red-flags-brian (I know, it's Tomase, but pretty good stuff here actually.) Of course, he's a team employee, and what else is he supposed to say -- "Ehhh, yeah, not really sold on this guy myself"? -- but this does add to my (growing) hope that Pomeranz's 2016 performance is the real thing and not just a flash in the pan.

Reading between the lines of DD's statements the other night, the asking price for Hill and other rental types on the market was extreme, so he moved on. I'm not sure I'd bet on another pitching acquisition at this point, unless Eduardo craps the bed again between now and the deadline. Clearly they're hoping he can nail down the #5 job going forward.

Acquiring SP'ers is almost always easier and cheaper during the winter. There are more choices (FA & trades), and some can be acquired without losing a top prospect like Espinoza. In fact, Pomeranz could have been acquired last winter without losing Espi. Over the winter we probably could have had Pomeranz for very little. San Diego got him for Yonder Alonso and Marc Rzepczynski, and in 6 months turned that into a top 15-20 prospect in the game. If I was a Padres fan, I'd be thrilled with that.

CCTOR...I like it.

If Pomeranz continues to be a stud, I will have no complaints about this deal going forward. I'll just content myself with thinking that the Red Sox must believe he is the real deal, and possibly were not as sold on Espinoza as we might have thought. Having gone through all the stages of grief since last night, I think I am pretty okay with this.

We're all whiners at some point...I can live with that.

Haven't caught up on the last 10+ pages of this thread yet, but the idea that Espinoza was "struggling" in A-ball seems a bit overblown. His FIP was 3.09. He was more than holding his own at age 18, and his high rankings on all midseason prospect lists so far reflect that. Anyway, other than that, I've said my piece on him. I don't love the deal, but it's done and I'm just going to choose to be optimistic. Hopefully Pomeranz is indeed the savior that has been prophesied.

I guess this depends on one's definition of "worthwhile," but in no way do I believe this. I know DD said last night that teams were asking for the same sort of return for rentals as for controlled pitchers, but it's still 2 1/2 weeks before the deadline -- of course the asking prices are crazy. I'll ban myself from this forum if Beane ends up getting an Espinoza-quality prospect for Hill, for example. It may work out, and it may not, but this was a panic move, pure and simple.

I think that's really the problem a lot of people are having with this trade: no one is quite sure just what to expect from Pomeranz. If he's a TOTR guy, awesome! We may be able to justify this even if Espinoza goes on to have a good career. But if he's only a middle/back of the rotation starter in the AL East? Ehhhh.... you don't give up one of the top pitching prospects in baseball for a #3/4. Time will tell.

Having had some time to mull this over now, I hate losing Espinoza, but I don't think this is the end of the world. I like that we have Pomeranz through 2018; I wish he had more of a track record to go on, making this something of a gamble, but if his breakout this year is legit and he continues to pitch like a #1/2, this could turn out to be well worth it. I love Espinoza's potential, and it will suck not to be able to follow his starts and dream on him from now on. Young pitchers with his upside don't come around every day, and I really pray we made the right choice here. Of course, he is also several years away at minimum, and a lot could happen between now and then. If we had to give up one of the top four, I'd have preferred to send someone like Devers plus other pieces, but it's done. It's not a trade I'd have made, but given the uncertainty inherent with 18 year old pitching prospects and the fact that Pomeranz appears to be coming into his own just as he enters his prime, it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that this does turn out for the best. We'll see. (Side note: while there are valid arguments one can make for this trade, the fact that Pomeranz was an All-Star this year really isn't one of them. Brock Holt was an All-Star a year ago. Hopefully no one thinks we should trade Moncada for Bartolo Colon next.)

Heh...I remember this. Good to see you around, King.

One thing is certain: getting attached to prospects in the age of Dombrowski is going to be a recipe for headache. Time to change my avatar, I guess...

Lol...my post was completely and 100% sarcastic and referencing some of the overreactions earlier in the thread. Sorry about that.

I'll be interested to see what Hill and Hellickson (my two stated targets of preference) go for in the weeks to come.

Like I said, let's hope so.