Register now to remove this ad

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 130

Thread: Drew Pomeranz was worth it

  1. #31
    I just can't buy the overpay 'theory' when Pom is integral part of current chase for World Series ring. As an alternative, we would have traded for middle of road at best starter just so it won't cost as much? What if that prospect turns out to be better than Espinoza?

    The point is projecting out prospects is an inexact science at best. Just think what we could have received for Owens and Johnson at one point. There are more failures than success stories. Just that fact alone tells you that it's okay to trade away your best prospects as long as you are getting something of known value. Obviously that's what DD did. DD also placed his bets on Devers being a better 3rd baseman than Moncada (White Sox has him playing back to 2B). He also read that correctly. Now it maybe that Moncada turns out to be a better player. So what? We got what we wanted in Sale. It's a risk worth taking.

    Last night was another prime example. I realize it's taken awhile for Carson Smith to show us what he maybe capable with his recent outings. Wade Miley is just an inning eater. A number five pitcher at best. I still love that trade with Seattle. Carson Smith is under team control for another three years. He can definitely be our 8th inning guy next year and there's an outside chance that he becomes a closer for 2019/20 seasons. He's that good.

    Jay Groome? I'd listen to an offer only because he's a hot commodity. Moon, would you have done a straight up deal for Quintana? I would have.
    Last edited by Nick; 09-21-2017 at 08:48 AM.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by vjcsmoke View Post
    Let's not forget that Pomeranz was the player with the injury concerns at the moment of the trade, not Espinosa.
    He had TJS mere months after the trade, so I wouldn't go THAT far.
    If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
    He had TJS mere months after the trade, so I wouldn't go THAT far.
    Maybe, mabe it was the Sox with better understanding of medical records.

  4. #34
    Let's just say for the sake of argument that Anderson Espinosa comes on like gangbusters at some point in the next 5 years or so.

    Does that necessarily invalidate the value of Pomeranz now? Heck no. The Red Sox at the time of the trade were and still are trying to reestabish themselves as a top franchise in the AL East after a couple tough seasons. We had a legit chance to ramp up for a deep playoff run and that's a legitimate time to mortgage the future in favor of the present in a league where it's damn hard to be good year in and year out.

    Especially in light of our abysmal record in developing homegrown starting pitching, I am entirely fine in letting prospects go to bring in starting pitching from outside the organization. It's a defensible decision especially in the short term and when you're fighting for pennants, the short term is at least as important as the long term.
    If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I just can't buy the overpay 'theory' when Pom is integral part of current chase for World Series ring. As an alternative, we would have traded for middle of road at best starter just so it won't cost as much? What if that prospect turns out to be better than Espinoza?

    The point is projecting out prospects is an inexact science at best. Just think what we could have received for Owens and Johnson at one point. There are more failures than success stories. Just that fact alone tells you that it's okay to trade away your best prospects as long as you are getting something of known value. Obviously that's what DD did. DD also placed his bets on Devers being a better 3rd baseman than Moncada (White Sox has him playing back to 2B). He also read that correctly. Now it maybe that Moncada turns out to be a better player. So what? We got what we wanted in Sale. It's a risk worth taking.

    Last night was another prime example. I realize it's taken awhile for Carson Smith to show us what he maybe capable with his recent outings. Wade Miley is just an inning eater. A number five pitcher at best. I still love that trade with Seattle. Carson Smith is under team control for another three years. He can definitely be our 8th inning guy next year and there's an outside chance that he becomes a closer for 2019/20 seasons. He's that good.

    Jay Groome? I'd listen to an offer only because he's a hot commodity. Moon, would you have done a straight up deal for Quintana? I would have.
    But we can't compare the Sale trade to the Pom trade. Sale was a guaranteed Ace, Pom was not. With the Pom trade we built from the middle, with Sale we built from the top. I'll take either one rather than trying to build from the bottom but.... Eh, Pom had more question marks, that's for sure... and will always have more question marks I'm willing to bet.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
    Let's just say for the sake of argument that Anderson Espinosa comes on like gangbusters at some point in the next 5 years or so.

    Does that necessarily invalidate the value of Pomeranz now? Heck no. The Red Sox at the time of the trade were and still are trying to reestabish themselves as a top franchise in the AL East after a couple tough seasons. We had a legit chance to ramp up for a deep playoff run and that's a legitimate time to mortgage the future in favor of the present in a league where it's damn hard to be good year in and year out.

    Especially in light of our abysmal record in developing homegrown starting pitching, I am entirely fine in letting prospects go to bring in starting pitching from outside the organization. It's a defensible decision especially in the short term and when you're fighting for pennants, the short term is at least as important as the long term.
    Certainly continued greatness from Pom will make this deal look much better.

    Not many go back and lament the Beckett-Lowell trade, although HRam and Anibal Sanchez's numbers (and more years of control) looked better.

    Still, if Espi goes on to give the Padres 5 years of ace or number 2 slot value, one can argue the deal was "an overpay"- necessary or not.

  7. #37
    whatever Dojji just said, I'm on board with that.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Maybe, mabe it was the Sox with better understanding of medical records.
    That would be a first.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
    He had TJS mere months after the trade, so I wouldn't go THAT far.
    Was that surgery predictable at the time of the trade?

  10. #40
    I'll put it this way...

    Past, Present, and Future...What Trade held and holds MORE risk? The Sale trade or the Pom trade?

    For me I'm going with the Pom trade as more risky.

    ***(but as of this year, I'm very satisfied with both trades)***

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    Certainly continued greatness from Pom will make this deal look much better.

    Not many go back and lament the Beckett-Lowell trade, although HRam and Anibal Sanchez's numbers (and more years of control) looked better.

    Still, if Espi goes on to give the Padres 5 years of ace or number 2 slot value, one can argue the deal was "an overpay"- necessary or not.
    That's a fair way to put it. Was it an overpay? YES. Was it necessary? YES.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Emp9 View Post
    But we can't compare the Sale trade to the Pom trade. Sale was a guaranteed Ace, Pom was not. With the Pom trade we built from the middle, with Sale we built from the top. I'll take either one rather than trying to build from the bottom but.... Eh, Pom had more question marks, that's for sure... and will always have more question marks I'm willing to bet.
    If you take away the part of last year that Pom missed or was pitching while injured, he's put up very good numbers for a 47 start sample size. That's a season and a half. He's approaching or is at a time where "questionable" can be removed from his descriptors. (Injury issues may return, but he has had 30 starts for 2 straight years now.

    17 starts w SD
    2.47/ 1.059 WHIP

    30 starts this year
    3.15/ 1.340

    The WHIP of over 1.3 in concerning. The pitches per inning are too. He's never gone over 171 IP (until maybe his next start puts him at 172).

    Bottom line: I'm thrilled we have him.

    The plus: DD got 3 playoff cycles for a single A pitcher.

    The minus: Espi's ceiling, if reached, could be haunting.

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    If you take away the part of last year that Pom missed or was pitching while injured, he's put up very good numbers for a 47 start sample size. That's a season and a half. He's approaching or is at a time where "questionable" can be removed from his descriptors. (Injury issues may return, but he has had 30 starts for 2 straight years now.

    17 starts w SD
    2.47/ 1.059 WHIP

    30 starts this year
    3.15/ 1.340

    The WHIP of over 1.3 in concerning. The pitches per inning are too. He's never gone over 171 IP (until maybe his next start puts him at 172).

    Bottom line: I'm thrilled we have him.

    The plus: DD got 3 playoff cycles for a single A pitcher.

    The minus: Espi's ceiling, if reached, could be haunting.
    But I feel like I have to include Pom's Boston performance at the very beginning because we made that trade for a post season run. We wouldn't have made the trade in the first place for it not.

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Emp9 View Post
    But I feel like I have to include Pom's Boston performance at the very beginning because we made that trade for a post season run. We wouldn't have made the trade in the first place for it not.
    I agree, and if he is injury prone, that's part of the trade evaluation criteria (as with Espi), but my point was that I feel the "questionable" label is (at least) starting to peel away.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Emp9 View Post
    That's a fair way to put it. Was it an overpay? YES. Was it necessary? YES.
    One bone of contention: trading for a starter was "necessary", but Pom was not the only guy to trade for, and Espi was not the only guy we had to trade to get a starter.

    It looks like DD picked a good starter for 2017-2018 maybe, but not really 2016 which was the major impetus of the trade, right? I get that.

    Usually, GM trade good prospects for 2 month rentals. Getting 3 playoff cycles is a huge plus from this trade, despite the fact that the first one (P.O. cycle) did not work out too well.

Posting Permissions

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