MLB investigating Padres Over Pomeranz Trade

[EvilEmpire]

A reasonable plan to me would have been to identify someone to mediate who had prior front office or scouting experience and can properly assign value to players.Both teams would have been instructed to identify 3 prospects that would be used to "trade" for Espinoza. The central idea would be that they should be lesser prospects than him. Each team could strike one player from the other list. They would then present to the mediator why they feel the players they identified would be appropriate compensation (legitimate, yet lesser prospect). If they each had the same player on their lists it would default to that player. You would want to make the process so the Padres don't go after someone like Kopech and the Sox don't offer some rookie league late rounder. It's not perfect, but it's the best scenario I can think of.

If MLB wanted to get into the prospect evaluation business for stuff like this I very much doubt they would want to change a deal so drastically as to remove Espinoza from it. Easier to tell the Padres to send something extra back to the Red Sox. Given the relatively minor nature of the withheld information, telling the Padres to protect their top 20 or 30 prospects and letting the Sox pick someone from the rest might be reasonable. In other words, nothing to get real excited about.

Justifications for the Sox somehow getting Espinoza back sounds like fanboy talk.

 

[BaseballJones]

Surrendering a draft pick seems like a pretty logical solution. Doesn't take away anything from the current Padres organization, but if it's a sufficiently high draft pick (say, 2nd round), then it will sting for sure. And punishments are supposed to hurt and act as an incentive to never break the rules again.

 

[DrBoston]

Surrendering a draft pick seems like a pretty logical solution. Doesn't take away anything from the current Padres organization, but if it's a sufficiently high draft pick (say, 2nd round), then it will sting for sure. And punishments are supposed to hurt and act as an incentive to never break the rules again.

Exactly. The "punishment" SD got is more of a "phew, we got away with it, that wasn't so bad...maybe we'll try it again in the future?"

 

[SpaceMan37]

At the very least, the Red Sox should receive SD's 2nd round pick. The Red Sox have not been made whole. The offer to rescind was not even an option given that it was offered after the deadline. The Padres remain unpunished. In fact, the Padres save money by not paying Preller for 30 days during a period of time that he has pretty much nothing to do.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

A reasonable plan to me would have been to identify someone to mediate who had prior front office or scouting experience and can properly assign value to players.Both teams would have been instructed to identify 3 prospects that would be used to "trade" for Espinoza. The central idea would be that they should be lesser prospects than him. Each team could strike one player from the other list. They would then present to the mediator why they feel the players they identified would be appropriate compensation (legitimate, yet lesser prospect). If they each had the same player on their lists it would default to that player. You would want to make the process so the Padres don't go after someone like Kopech and the Sox don't offer some rookie league late rounder. It's not perfect, but it's the best scenario I can think of.

Exactly how I saw it. I get that it becomes something of a hairy situation and for that reason alone it has no chance of happening, and frankly I doubt the transgressive acts from SDP would ultimately warrant this level of "drama" as a solution. I should have been more clear, but I meant my proposal in a "let's assume it was bad enough that MLB really had to address the deception/ when it came to light" sense.

Anyway, I'm not clamoring for it to happen, but "because the Padres really wanted Espinoza" isn't a reason why it couldn't/ shouldn't happen.

 

[Plympton91]

Yeah, I think the solution where the Red Sox offer two players and the Padres ask for two players, and an arbitrator decides which offer is closer to the value of an injured Pomeranz is very similar to the way salary arbitration works. If either team is unreasonable, then the arbitration defaults to the more reasonable side.

Giving the Sox Draft or international signing money equal in value to some fraction of Espinoza's signing bonus also seems like a valid option.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

Why was he pitching in Petco last Friday?

 

[jon abbey]

Why was he pitching in Petco last Friday?

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20161008&content_id=205414130&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb&sid=milb

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20161008&content_id=205414130&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb&sid=milb

Thanks.

 

[Plympton91]

Well, I sure hope Drew is able to get better with some rest and show up ready to be a 15 game winner next February, because right now this trade is Anderson Espinoza for the 2016 ALDS Goat.

 

[Stitch01]

Well, I sure hope Drew is able to get better with some rest and show up ready to be a 15 game winner next February, because right now this trade is Anderson Espinoza for the 2016 ALDS Goat.

No.

 

[DrBoston]

Apart from giving up that bomb to Coco, Pomeranz actually pitched quite well in relief in the ALDS, which is more than can be said for Porcello or Price.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Well, I sure hope Drew is able to get better with some rest and show up ready to be a 15 game winner next February, because right now this trade is Anderson Espinoza for the 2016 ALDS Goat.

Yeah no. The 3 Bs and the Number 1 and Number 2 starting pitchers are the guys who blew this series for the Sox.

 

[DrBoston]

Yeah no. The 3 Bs and the Number 1 and Number 2 starting pitchers are the guys who blew this series for the Sox.

:agree: Yup. I'd throw Pedroia and Ortiz in, too...their hitting was brutal for the most part.

 

[PTC]

I thought this was a pretty dumb trade when it was made, but I can certainly see how next year might totally prove that incorrect. If both he, and Price, have the kind of bounce backs that Porcello had this year....you're looking a MUCH more effective staff than we had this season. And I think we're going to NEED an improved staff next year because I don't see our offense putting up these kinds of numbers again for awhile (any team losing their 2nd best hitter would likely decline).

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

If the Sox didn't make that trade, PTC, do you think they would have made the playoffs? Remember: Henry Owens (or worse) would have gotten Pomeranz's starts. The Sox went 6-7 in his starts.

 

[Green Monster]

If the Sox didn't make that trade, PTC, do you think they would have made the playoffs? Remember: Henry Owens (or worse) would have gotten Pomeranz's starts. The Sox went 6-7 in his starts.

Most likely not, but is an 0-3 showing in the playoffs really that much better than not making the playoffs at all?

 

[Byrdbrain]

No it isn't, but that is a silly way of looking at it. You get to the playoffs and then you see what happens, nothing good happened for the Sox in the Playoffs that doesn't meant they shouldn't try to make them.

 

[Green Monster]

Good point...... For the record I am on board with Pomeranz. Just hope something major is not going on with his arm, and wish that the Padres had been penalized more than they were.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Most likely not, but is an 0-3 showing in the playoffs really that much better than not making the playoffs at all?

Yes, it is. As someone else noted, you get there and take your chances. But above and beyond that it's a lift to your fanbase after two last place finishes, it's a financial boon and the young players get a taste. It wasn't hard to see that the kids folded under the spotlight. Now next time they are more used to it. Which is to say nothing of the Papi factor, which is debatable but real.

 

[nvalvo]

I'm guessing if something major was going on with his arm, he wouldn't have been pitching in October.

 

[PTC]

If the Sox didn't make that trade, PTC, do you think they would have made the playoffs? Remember: Henry Owens (or worse) would have gotten Pomeranz's starts. The Sox went 6-7 in his starts.

I can't speculate because I don't know what other deals were on the table. I'll say I think it is VERY possible we make the playoffs either way. He had very little to do with a win streak that I think got us into the playoffs.

I'm not advocating that the Red Sox should have done nothing at the deadline; I only think this was a pretty mediocre deal. Also you're saying we went 6-7 in his starts, but 2 of those wins were bails outs where the offense essentially won the game...and I think would have regardless of the pitcher.

So 2 wins had very little to do with him, he couldn't make it past the 5th in half of the games he played. Lastly, he pitched well in a Sox win exactly 3 times. I'm just unimpressed.

As I said in my original post, I think it's very possible that he has a bounce back next year the likes of other high profile Sox acquisitions. But I thought this was a pretty suspect deal and I saw little during the year that makes me feel any differently about it now.

 

[Plympton91]

No it isn't, but that is a silly way of looking at it. You get to the playoffs and then you see what happens, nothing good happened for the Sox in the Playoffs that doesn't meant they shouldn't try to make them.

Actually. I'd say it is substantially better. They won the division. That puts another flag on the fascade of Fenway. Excellent year. Wouldn't change a thing. People still seem oblivious to the fact that Espinoza, for all the hype, wasn't very good this year.

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

Actually. I'd say it is substantially better. They won the division. That puts another flag on the fascade of Fenway. Excellent year. Wouldn't change a thing. People still seem oblivious to the fact that Espinoza, for all the hype, wasn't very good this year.

Espinoza is definitely not a sure thing to be a stud ace and this year proves. Could they have sold higher? Maybe, but if he rebounds with a 15 win season with solid numbers they did pretty damn good.

 

[joe dokes]

So 2 wins had very little to do with him, he couldn't make it past the 5th in half of the games he played. Lastly, he pitched well in a Sox win exactly 3 times. I'm just unimpressed.
.

He "pitched well in a Sox win" is a fake qualifier. he either pitched well or he didn't. He made 13 starts and 9 of them were better than what they likely would have gotten from Osulivan, or Owens or whoever else they were throwing out there.

 

[DrBoston]

Most likely not, but is an 0-3 showing in the playoffs really that much better than not making the playoffs at all?

I think so. It gave the young guys a taste of postseason baseball and can't do anything but help them out going forward.

 

[PTC]

He "pitched well in a Sox win" is a fake qualifier. he either pitched well or he didn't. He made 13 starts and 9 of them were better than what they likely would have gotten from Osulivan, or Owens or whoever else they were throwing out there.

It's absolutely NOT a fake qualifier. The whole point here revolves around whether we needed Drew Pomeranz to make the playoffs because that's what the deal was made. If we score 15 runs per game and win whether it's Drew Pomeranz, or my grandmother, that speaks to whether we needed to make the deal to get in the playoffs.

So yes, the way we know if we needed Drew was to look at how much his actual play impacted the Red Sox winning. If it impacted the winning, it was a smart move. How much did we win in games where it was HIS play that determined that. I count some, but not enough to make this deal worth it.

I concede he could bounce back next year....

 

[Plympton91]

It's absolutely NOT a fake qualifier. The whole point here revolves around whether we needed Drew Pomeranz to make the playoffs because that's what the deal was made. If we score 15 runs per game and win whether it's Drew Pomeranz, or my grandmother, that speaks to whether we needed to make the deal to get in the playoffs.

So yes, the way we know if we needed Drew was to look at how much his actual play impacted the Red Sox winning. If it impacted the winning, it was a smart move. How much did we win in games where it was HIS play that determined that. I count some, but not enough to make this deal worth it.

I concede he could bounce back next year....

How many times did they win the next night because Pomeranz didn't get knocked out in the 3rd inning and burn the bullpen the way Owens was doing?

 

[PTC]

How many times did they win the next night because Pomeranz didn't get knocked out in the 3rd inning and burn the bullpen the way Owens was doing?

Well he was no ironman. He averaged about 5 innings a start here and I guess what Id say is that the bullpen loomed large in most of his starts either way. We can say that doesn't rise to the level of burning them out, but I'd say that's probably just about replacement level. I see that and I shrug.

And I guess if we're comparing him to Owens he comes out favorably. However lots of guys come out favorably, and this gets back to what I said in my first post. I conceded that I don't KNOW there were other deals on the table, but I find it hard to believe we couldn't get exactly what we got from Drew, from a bunch of other guys and given up way less.

The fact that San Diego didn't get what THEY expected is irrelevant. Id rather have the kid as a trade chip for a future time, then make a deal with him that may not have had much impact on our making the playoffs.

Look, this isn't a hill to die on for me. I'm not attached to this argument enough to make the claim that it's totally clear cut. But as I sit, looking at his time here, I find it really hard to walk myself to a place where I view this move as being very successful. Or maybe another way to put it is....the level of success we got from him was so low, I find it pretty easy to think we could have gotten that value while giving up much less.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Well he was no ironman. He averaged about 5 innings a start here and I guess what Id say is that the bullpen loomed large in most of his starts either way. We can say that doesn't rise to the level of burning them out, but I'd say that's probably just about replacement level. I see that and I shrug.

And I guess if we're comparing him to Owens he comes out favorably. However lots of guys come out favorably, and this gets back to what I said in my first post. I conceded that I don't KNOW there were other deals on the table, but I find it hard to believe we couldn't get exactly what we got from Drew, from a bunch of other guys and given up way less.

The fact that San Diego didn't get what THEY expected is irrelevant. Id rather have the kid as a trade chip for a future time, then make a deal with him that may not have had much impact on our making the playoffs.

Look, this isn't a hill to die on for me. I'm not attached to this argument enough to make the claim that it's totally clear cut. But as I sit, looking at his time here, I find it really hard to walk myself to a place where I view this move as being very successful. Or maybe another way to put it is....the level of success we got from him was so low, I find it pretty easy to think we could have gotten that value while giving up much less.

First, the willingness to give up Espinoza was not totally about the playoff stretch in 2016. It was part of it, yes, but there is also was the factor that he;'s under control for two more seasons at arbitration rates, when the FA market is completely void of any competent acquisitions. This adds a premium to his price. As does the fact that they acquired him in time to make three starts before the trade deadline. As does the fact that he's a young lefty with pedigree and was having an All Star level season. As does the fact it was one of the worst trade deadline seasons for starting pitching in a long time.

Now, all that aside, let's focus on your bolded statements here for a moment. You've been asked in other threads and directed by the moderator of this forum to show your work. So tell us who was moved at the trade deadline that performed better than he did over the remainder of the season and why they could have been expected to do so, given the trajectory of their season to that date. Please also factor in future control and prospect cost.

 

[joe dokes]

It's absolutely NOT a fake qualifier. The whole point here revolves around whether we needed Drew Pomeranz to make the playoffs because that's what the deal was made. If we score 15 runs per game and win whether it's Drew Pomeranz, or my grandmother, that speaks to whether we needed to make the deal to get in the playoffs.
So yes, the way we know if we needed Drew was to look at how much his actual play impacted the Red Sox winning. If it impacted the winning, it was a smart move. How much did we win in games where it was HIS play that determined that. I count some, but not enough to make this deal worth it.

No, the deal was made so that a team that was trying to win a division didn't have to start Sean O'Sullivan or Henry Owens every 5th day, and because both Buchholz and Rodriguez weren't the better bets they became later. And, by my count, in 9 of 13 starts, Pomeranz gave them better than what they had been getting from the guys who no longer were allowed to pitch for the Red Sox when it counted in 2016.

And no, you can't determine "whether they needed Drew" based on what happened in the games beyond the way he pitched in them. When they won 3-2, but he only pitched 5, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Did they "need" him to win? What about when he pitched 6 innings and struck out 11 but they lost 2-1? Or 6IP, with 6Ks and 6BB's in a 3-2 win?

So on that last point, in which games was it "HIS play that determined" winning (other than "not enough of them"?)

 

[ALiveH]

He had 170 IPs this year and his previous career highs were 115 IPs in 2014 and 147 IPs in 2012. Young guys (just 27) normally need to build up workload / stamina and next season barring injury should be ready to give us 200+. Given his track record of good-great performance it makes zero sense to me to keep him in the bullpen. He should be handed a spot in the rotation - no brainer.

 

[PTC]

No, the deal was made so that a team that was trying to win a division didn't have to start Sean O'Sullivan or Henry Owens every 5th day, and because both Buchholz and Rodriguez weren't the better bets they became later. And, by my count, in 9 of 13 starts, Pomeranz gave them better than what they had been getting from the guys who no longer were allowed to pitch for the Red Sox when it counted in 2016.

And no, you can't determine "whether they needed Drew" based on what happened in the games beyond the way he pitched in them. When they won 3-2, but he only pitched 5, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Did they "need" him to win? What about when he pitched 6 innings and struck out 11 but they lost 2-1? Or 6IP, with 6Ks and 6BB's in a 3-2 win?

So on that last point, in which games was it "HIS play that determined" winning (other than "not enough of them"?)

I've already addressed this point. The decision wasn't between Pomeranz and Owens. It was between Pomeranz, Owens, and any other player who we might have acquired before the deadline (either for Espinoza, or someone of less value). Now, I already put the caveat in that without knowing what players were available...a full analysis is probably impossible. And that's why I'm curious how much more Pomeranz provided than you're average replacement level pitcher. Now his WAR in Boston was .6, so the questions for me were:

A) Was that .6 the difference between the playoffs and not?
B) Was that worth the price we paid in either event?
C) Was he the only available pitcher that would have provided that level of an upgrade?

I think it's hard to make the case that A is true, but I'm all ears if someone can make it. I think B is really questionable, but I totally conceded that next year may tell the tale. And I conceded that we can't possibly know C.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I've already addressed this point. The decision wasn't between Pomeranz and Owens. It was between Pomeranz, Owens, and any other player who we might have acquired before the deadline (either for Espinoza, or someone of less value). Now, I already put the caveat in that without knowing what players were available...a full analysis is probably impossible. And that's why I'm curious how much more Pomeranz provided than you're average replacement level pitcher. Now his WAR in Boston was .6, so the questions for me were:

A) Was that .6 the difference between the playoffs and not?
B) Was that worth the price we paid in either event?
C) Was he the only available pitcher that would have provided that level of an upgrade?

I think it's hard to make the case that A is true, but I'm all ears if someone can make it. I think B is really questionable, but I totally conceded that next year may tell the tale. And I conceded that we can't possibly know C.

A) You don't understand how WAR works
B) Yes
C) See my earlier question and instead of wish casting on who *might* have been available, do some leg work and look at the other SPs that were in fact traded and build your case off of that.

 

[JimD]

Alex Speier offers a look at one alternative to the Pomeranz deal in yesterday's '108 Stitches' newsletter:

Indeed, the Sox explored the possibility of a reunion with Hill to correct what had gone awry at the back of their rotation. According to one major league source, the A’s sought a return built around a player of the caliber of Blake Swihart, Sam Travis, or Michael Kopech – any of whom represented a price too steep for a rental, in the eyes of the Sox, thus leading them to make the deal of Drew Pomeranz for Anderson Espinoza.

If this is what DD was looking at, Espinoza for two-plus years of Pomeranz doesn't look so bad to me. YMMV.

 

[effectivelywild]

I've already addressed this point. The decision wasn't between Pomeranz and Owens. It was between Pomeranz, Owens, and any other player who we might have acquired before the deadline (either for Espinoza, or someone of less value). Now, I already put the caveat in that without knowing what players were available...a full analysis is probably impossible. And that's why I'm curious how much more Pomeranz provided than you're average replacement level pitcher. Now his WAR in Boston was .6, so the questions for me were:

A) Was that .6 the difference between the playoffs and not?
B) Was that worth the price we paid in either event?
C) Was he the only available pitcher that would have provided that level of an upgrade?

I think it's hard to make the case that A is true, but I'm all ears if someone can make it. I think B is really questionable, but I totally conceded that next year may tell the tale. And I conceded that we can't possibly know C.

I think one of the key things for this deal is that Pomeranz was not acquired *just* for a playoff push. Yeah, that was one of the reasons we got him, but we need to stop talking about him and the results as if he were a rental. Would Espinoza have been too much to give up for Pomeranz if all we got for him was this year? Yeah. But that's not the case. We get him for two more arb-eligible years. And in the current state of what's available this offseason---Pomeranz looks pretty damn good. Regardless of what you think of the trade, framing it as "Was the advantage of having Pomeranz over Owens down the stretch worth Espinoza" misses a large part of Pomeranz's value.