Register now to remove this ad

Page 282 of 299 FirstFirst ... 182232272280281282283284292 ... LastLast
Results 4,216 to 4,230 of 4478

Thread: A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

  1. #4216
    Quote Originally Posted by harmony View Post
    Should Dave Dombrowski have offered Michael Kopech instead of Anderson Espinoza when the Drew Pomeranz injury was revealed?

    On July 11 Baseball America released its midseason prospect rankings with Espinoza at No. 15 and Kopech at No. 93:

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/minor...Cb1ZUj2EVO7.97

    The Pomeranz trade came three days later.

    BA's current preseason prospect rankings have Espinoza No. 21 and Kopech No. 32:

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/minor...3BQFvUHjoK0.97

    Baseball Prospectus has Espinoza No. 24 and Kopech No. 36:

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=31160

    MLB Prospect Watch has Espinoza No. 25 and Kopech No. 16:

    http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2017?list=prospects
    None of us knows for sure what was in those medical reports. Dombrowski and team obviously didn't think it was that big of a deal. We'll find out soon enough if it was a big deal or not.

    At that time, Preller likely would not have accepted Kopech.

  2. #4217
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    None of us knows for sure what was in those medical reports. Dombrowski and team obviously didn't think it was that big of a deal. We'll find out soon enough if it was a big deal or not.

    At that time, Preller likely would not have accepted Kopech.
    We'll never know but San Diego GM A.J. Preller was not in a great negotiating position after the injury was revealed.

  3. #4218
    Quote Originally Posted by mvp 78 View Post
    Don't pop your kernels until the rollercoaster ride ends. He's only thrown over 100 innings as a starter once. Comparing him to Porcello is a huge slap in the face to Porcello's pedigree.

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statsplits....on=0&split=8.1
    The point of the comparison is the tendency pitchers have to (for whatever reason) struggle when first arriving to Boston, then getting their shit together. Lackey (health), Porcello (performance) are two recent cases.
    We miss you Mike.

  4. #4219
    Also, I will slap Porcello in his horse face whenever I damn well please!
    We miss you Mike.

  5. #4220
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name? View Post
    The point of the comparison is the tendency pitchers have to (for whatever reason) struggle when first arriving to Boston, then getting their shit together. Lackey (health), Porcello (performance) are two recent cases.
    I'm pretty certain 90% of Sox fans at 2015 All Star break was wondering why in the hell we extended Porcello for 4 years at $80M.

  6. #4221
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name? View Post
    The point of the comparison is the tendency pitchers have to (for whatever reason) struggle when first arriving to Boston, then getting their shit together. Lackey (health), Porcello (performance) are two recent cases.
    Porcello had a very strong 2nd half in 2015. Many Sox fans noticed that.
    Devers OPS in BOS: 1.151. Seasoning in AAA is overrated.

  7. #4222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    I didn't like giving up Espinoza for Pom, but that trade had to be done, IMO. We needed some stability in the 4 and 5 spots of our rotation, and Pom provided that.

    That said, once reports came out about Pom's arm issues, whatever they were, Dombrowski perhaps should have backed out of the trade.
    It didn't "have to be done".

    Yes, we seemed to need a starter, but one, he wasn't the only starter out there, and two, it turned out we did fine without Pom doing much for us anyway.

  8. #4223
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I'm pretty certain 90% of Sox fans at 2015 All Star break was wondering why in the hell we extended Porcello for 4 years at $80M.
    I guess I've always been in that 10%.

  9. #4224
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    It didn't "have to be done".

    Yes, we seemed to need a starter, but one, he wasn't the only starter out there, and two, it turned out we did fine without Pom doing much for us anyway.
    Again, after the fact. You just didn't like what we gave up. Something had to be done.

  10. #4225
    Of course at that time we needed a starter, we had Porcello, Price and Wright and some really bad starts from everybody else. We stayed ahead of the market for Pom. The return on Rich Hill was even worse. Beane was also asking for Espi for Hill , an upcoming free agent who was injured. for it to work out for us Pom has to stay healthy, but Espi is a long way from being a major league pitcher and a lot of factors can impede his development.

  11. #4226
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Again, after the fact. You just didn't like what we gave up. Something had to be done.
    No. Not "after the fact."

    I hated the trade at the time, and said so repeatedly.

    I do think we could have used another starter, but it was not essential. I said that at the time too.

    When the league offered a give back, I said we should do it, even knowing we were past the trade deadline, and it meant we'd have to finish the season without Pom.

    Something did not "have to be done", At worst, we could have traded for a 5th starter tyep for less of a bounty/

  12. #4227
    Quote Originally Posted by mvp 78 View Post
    Porcello had a very strong 2nd half in 2015. Many Sox fans noticed that.
    Wait, wasn't I the main Porcello defender on this site? Shut your face, I'm trying to make a point here.
    We miss you Mike.

  13. #4228
    Quote Originally Posted by Fisk View Post
    Of course at that time we needed a starter, we had Porcello, Price and Wright and some really bad starts from everybody else. We stayed ahead of the market for Pom. The return on Rich Hill was even worse. Beane was also asking for Espi for Hill , an upcoming free agent who was injured. for it to work out for us Pom has to stay healthy, but Espi is a long way from being a major league pitcher and a lot of factors can impede his development.
    At the time of the trade, we were 50-38 and 2 games up in the division.

    Seems we were doing pretty good despite the fact that we had these numbers from our 4 through 9 starters:

    3-9 5.91 Buch (13 GS)
    2-0 8.46 Kelly (6)
    1-3 8.59 ERod (6)
    2-0 6.75 O'Sullivan (4)
    0-0 5.11 Owens (3)
    0-1 15.88 Elias (1)

    No doubt, these numbers were frightening, while Pomeranz had put up great numbers in the first half of 2016, but we didn't "have to" do anything. Pomeranz's second half performance proved we didn't, and yes that is hindsight, but I still think we didn't need to try and find a number 3 type starter. A one year fifth starter rental was an option as well as doing nothing but hope Buch or ERod would rebound.

  14. #4229
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name? View Post
    Wait, wasn't I the main Porcello defender on this site? Shut your face, I'm trying to make a point here.
    I loved the Porcello extension from day one, but I was on another site defending the extension even through the rough patch of early 2015.

  15. #4230
    Let's give us five starters for now.

    Is our option after those five really the WORST in MLB? Are we that bad?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •