I was thinking Bowden, myself.So, Espinoza is Lars Anderson. Awesome.
I was thinking Bowden, myself.So, Espinoza is Lars Anderson. Awesome.
Again, Espinoza wasn't the Red Sox #4 pitching prospect.I was thinking Bowden, myself.
Dude. A 6'0" 160 lb 18 year old kid who is posting average numbers in A ball for a cost controlled All-Star? Seriously?Not even remotely the same, but why should I bother?
Is this the bit I whine to the mods?I hope you die in a car crash, you stupid fucking piece of shit.*
*NOT AD HOMINEM, JUST A QUOTE
HEY WAIT EVERYONE, THIS GUY HAS NUANCED STUFF TO SAY.When do we get a thread so we can talk this trade with some rationality? Like, a couple days so everyone can cool down? I honestly forget what happened with the last big trade. I have nuanced stuff to say about Pomeranz but I don't want to have fiery death wished upon me.
Henry Owens was considered by some to be one of the top LHP prospects a year ago.Again, Espinoza wasn't the Red Sox #4 pitching prospect.
He was the #4 pitching prospect in all MLB.
Just because the Sox haven't had a pitcher to compare him to in recent memory, doesn't make the comparisons apt.
Thanks for proving my point! You have even less to say, apparently.We're all ears.
This is a fair point. All I can say is A) this looks like the biggest pitching chip feasibly available; B) the package is only one player. If this had Sam Travis and a couple others along with it this thread would be more negative.Funny that roughly zero people were in favor of trading any of the big 4 for any pitcher not named Sale or Quintana in the pitching targets thread yet suddenly Pomeranz is easily worth Espinoza just because the trade has been completed.
Carl Pavano was rated as the #1 pitching prospect when he was moved for Pedro by some publications like Sickels. BA had him at #4 behind Kerry Wood, Matt White and Kris Benson.Again, Espinoza wasn't the Red Sox #4 pitching prospect.
He was the #4 pitching prospect in all MLB.
Just because the Sox haven't had a pitcher to compare him to in recent memory, doesn't make the comparisons apt.
The thing is, we have 2 groups arguing for and against this trade and it's bringing out a ton of hyperbole.Dude. A 6'0" 160 lb 18 year old kid who is posting average numbers in A ball for a cost controlled All-Star? Seriously?
I made a post a while back in in the MLB game threads about what kind of poor luck/run support Pomeranz had been getting. I think it was at the same time Cueto was getting basically no run support again in a game. I wonder if folks would feel differently if Pomeranz had a record of like 12-4 instead of 8-7, because they haven't looked deeper into the numbers.Tuesday or Wednesday against the Giants. He's faced them three times this season; they're hitting .207 against him.
The last two times he faced the, the Padres lost 2-1 and 1-0. He gave up six hits over 13 innings in those two starts
Nuance - you sure know how to spell it.Thanks for proving my point! You have even less to say?
Thanks! What do you think about the trade, asshole?Nuance - you sure know how to spell it.
This is what I'm looking forward to seeing. I think buyers are about to get bent over and fleeced at the trade deadline trying to get anything resembling a decent starting pitcher. Folks are going to look back at this trade and say "How the hell did the Sox get Pomeranz for one, albeit one great, prospect." I think DD making this move a couple weeks before the deadline was brilliant.One more thing that hasn't been mentioned: this likely means the price tag for Teheran was even higher. Curious to see the offers heading Atlanta's way come the deadline.
Nah, the worst thing is the shitty posters on the Main Board. Rip's post made me laugh (of course, I'm a sick bastard).How are you going to defend that kind of poster? That kind of ad hominem bs is the worst thing about this site
I wouldn't say Kopech emerged...I mean sure he hit 105 mph. But he's got a long way to go to get to Espinoza's level.Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 25m25 minutes ago
Dombrowski notes that going into the winter with 4 starters under control is a plus. … Also emergence of Kopech made deal more palatable
This thread makes me sad. This post made me laugh out loud.When do we get a thread so we can talk this trade with some rationality? Like, a couple days so everyone can cool down? I honestly forget what happened with the last big trade. I have nuanced stuff to say about this trade but I don't want to have fiery death wished upon me.
You do realize that Gardner has 17&16 hr seasons in MLB yes? I'm guessing that was not his projection based on milb stats so what is the point of using them in this context? I don't think AB has a lot of projection at this point. He is small and going on 23 so I'm not sure how much bigger he gets. The Brett Gardner comp wasn't to say he has no future as Brett has had a nice MLB career.
I would simply rather have the pitcher with ace potential over the OF with a much higher floor./QUOTE]
Yes, I'm aware. I'm just confused as to why you are using a players age 30/31 seasons to compare him to a 21 year old prospect (AB turned 22 literally a week ago; this is considered his age 21 season). He also never hit more than 8 in any other season - majors or minors - in his career, nor was he ever expected to. That wasn't his game. His game was solid defense, set the table and steal bases. That is not what AB is slotted for or expected to do. AB is projected to hit .300, 20+ HRs, high .300s OBP and slug, all while playing defense that he could stay in CF if the Sox had a hole there. His plate skills and power are legit even though he's small, much like Pedroia or Mookie. Most publications believe he has the swing speed and wrists to add more power despite his frame with a slight change in his swing plane.
Their stat lines, profiles or style of offense and projections are in now way shape or form similar in any regard. So when you use the word "clone" it appears that you've never actually seen him play or read up on him, just that you happened upon the Futures Game last week, saw him and thought he reminded you of Brett Gardner, because he's a short, LH hitting CF that plays good D.
But there's a reason that Gardner barely ever cracked the Yankees top 10 rankings and AB is routinely ranked in the top 10 in the whole league - it's because his ceiling is really high. You don't get ranked that high because you have a high floor.
Preferring to keep AE over him, because you don't think he will pan out, is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, but calling him a BG clone is just completely inaccurate. Maybe you meant you think he will have similar stat line at the end of day, but that's not being a clone. I know you're a hockey guy, if someone said they saw Pastrnak as a Lucic clone, wouldn't that seem odd to you, since while they play the same position and may end up with similar numbers, their games are so very different?
Thanks for this. This is what I was trying to say about 10 pages back. The guy was the #5 pick out of the draft, and went to the place where pitching dies. Since literally the minute he left Colorado, he's been on an upward trajectory that coincides nicely with a guy with his innate talent. He's 27 and he's peaking. I do not believe for a second this season is some kind of outlier that people should ignore.Just some simple stats for anyone who winces when looking at his career numbers:
w/ COL - 136.2 IP, 5.20 ERA, 89 ERA+, 4.78 FIP, 115 K, 70 BB, 18 HR
since COL - 257 IP, 2.84 ERA, 137 ERA+, 3.48 FIP, 261 K, 98 BB, 23 HR
He's a former stud prospect who got shipped to the Colorado pitcher graveyard who has done nothing but improve since he escaped, to the point now where he's fulfilling all his prospect promise.
Those calling him a #3 or #4 as if that's his ceiling are severely underrating him. He's:
- 13th in fWAR (tied with Max Scherzer)
- 3rd in ERA (tied with Johnny Cueto)
- 6th in ERA- (tied with Strasburg)
- 9th in FIP (just behind Arrietta)
- 2nd in line drive %
Those aren't NL ranks either, those are MLB ranks.
You can question if he'll have the stamina to hold up deep into the season, if his BABIP might regress (not much based on recent history combined with good soft/hard hit % and low line drive %), those are fair. But make no mistake that his ceiling is extremely high, because he's already pitching at it.
1997 isn't exactly recent memory.Carl Pavano was rated as the #1 pitching prospect when he was moved for Pedro by some publications like Sickels. BA had him at #4 behind Kerry Wood, Matt White and Kris Benson.
I don't think that a realistic median outcome for any pitching prospect is "one of best starters in MLB and make All-Star team"...within a standard deviation, maybe. Maybe.Turning into 2016 1st half Drew Pomeranz would be an above the median outcome for Espinosa, right? Question is, is that the real Drew Pomeranz?
It's called an example. Espinoza being three years younger than Pavano at that point is only three more years of the chance he doesn't reach his peak potential. He's a LONG way off. I'd have a lot more apprehension about trading a potential future ace if he were 21-22 and dominating AA, but at 18, with mixed results in low-A, and needing years of polish and injury avoidance, I'm okay with it. Pomeranz has a ton of pedigree himself, and has been a legitimately good MLB pitcher since escaping Colorado. Legitimately good MLB pitchers are exactly what this team needs right now, not lottery tickets.1997 isn't exactly recent memory.
Sorry, old dude.
And Espinoza is three years younger than Pavano was then.
And Drew Pomeranz isn't Pedro Martinez.
Right. That's why it's above the median.I don't think that a realistic median outcome for any pitching prospect is "one of best starters in MLB and make All-Star team"...within a standard deviation, maybe. Maybe.
You missed the memo.OT but when did they change the spelling of "have" to "of?" I only ask because I see it everywhere and am really starting to think I missed a memo. Or is it just too much work to type/swipe two extra letters when the two words sound remotely similar with the right (wrong) diction? I'm glad I never parlayed my English degree into a teaching job, because I don't think I could resist the temptation to give Fs to everyone who makes that mistake.
I know it probably wasn't an option but I would have much rather have seen the Sox sell high on Kopech (who seems just a good a shot to bust as Espinoza).I wouldn't say Kopech emerged...I mean sure he hit 105 mph. But he's got a long way to go to get to Espinoza's level.
I was inartfully agreeing with you.Right. That's why it's above the median.
I think the apprehension in trading a stud prospect like Espinoza comes from the fact that the Sox trotted out multiple pitchers (Clay, Joe K, ERod, etc.) and none of those jokers could even closely approximate "good MLB pitchers" which is inexcusable.It's called an example. Espinoza being three years younger than Pavano at that point is only three more years of the chance he doesn't reach his peak potential. He's a LONG way off. I'd have a lot more apprehension about trading a potential future ace if he were 21-22 and dominating AA, but at 18, with mixed results in low-A, and needing years of polish and injury avoidance, I'm okay with it. Pomeranz has a ton of pedigree himself, and has been a legitimately good MLB pitcher since escaping Colorado. Legitimately good MLB pitchers are exactly what this team needs right now, not lottery tickets.
You stated the Sox haven't had such a highly rated pitching prospect since Roger Clemens. Which was long before Pavano. There has been one much more recently. Carl Pavano.1997 isn't exactly recent memory.
Sorry, old dude.
And Espinoza is three years younger than Pavano was then.
And Drew Pomeranz isn't Pedro Martinez.
Alternatively, people haven't been vocal about their positon w/re to valuing the prospects. I don't know what else to say, but that an 18 year old pitcher is an extremely risky long term projection.Funny that roughly zero people were in favor of trading any of the big 4 for any pitcher not named Sale or Quintana in the pitching targets thread yet suddenly Pomeranz is easily worth Espinoza just because the trade has been completed.
BUT SOMEONE COMPARED ANDERSON ESPINOZA TO PEDRO AFTER 30 STARTS AT LOW A OR LOWER AND THEN PEDRO SAID DONT TRADE HIM AND SOMETHING ABOUT CLEMENS HOW CAN YOU TRADE HIM WHEN FIVE YEARS FROK NOW HE COULD BE ROGER MARTINEZ!?)??11After he was drafted in 2010, Pomeranz was the #4 prospect in the Indians organization, and BA had him ranked at #61 in all of MLB. By the end of 2011, when he was traded to the Rockies, he was Colorado's #1 prospect, the #1 pitching prospect in the Carolina League and BA's #30 prospect in all of baseball.
Just food for thought.
Kopech pitched at Greenville when he was a 19yr old with better results then an 18yr old AE. I'm not sure the spread is that huge and it sounds like DD likes what he is seeing so far this year.I wouldn't say Kopech emerged...I mean sure he hit 105 mph. But he's got a long way to go to get to Espinoza's level.
You stated the Sox haven't had such a highly rated pitching prospect since Roger Clemens. Which was long before Pavano. There has been one much more recently. Carl Pavano.
You also seem to complete discard distance from the majors when you're evaluating pitching prospects. AE has great stuff but he's years away. Still you tried to put him on par with Giolotti and Urias, who are already ready for the show. AE is in low A ball. He is in no way on par with those guys. Or Reyes in StL.
He's a tantalizing prospect with nasty stuff, who after getting Pedro comps started struggling this season. He also had a stress fracture in his elbow at age 16. It sucks to lose him, but the hand wringing over this has gone to hyperbole. There is a far better chance he never turns into even a quality ML SP - let alone the generational stud people are dreaming of. Because he's 18 years old in low A ball. And there's a crapton of stuff that can go wrong between now and then. So maybe we should just be glad it was only him that went out to get a very good piece that will give these team an immensely better chance this year (and the next two) and we held onto the better guys that have more stable projections.
You're posting like you have no understanding of what expected value is and suggesting teams should just focus on a player's floor or "stability." AE is a better prospect than the guys you're happy they kept because his expected value is higher even if his distribution has a wider range of outcomes.BUT SOMEONE COMPARED ANDERSON ESPINOZA TO PEDRO AFTER 30 STARTS AT LOW A OR LOWER AND THEN PEDRO SAID DONT TRADE HIM AND SOMETHING ABOUT CLEMENS HOW CAN YOU TRADE HIM WHEN FIVE YEARS FROK NOW HE COULD BE ROGER MARTINEZ!?)??11
If you have an expected value metric that doesn't account for temporal stabilization, then you have a dramatically flawed EV metric. Could you explain further?You're posting like you have no understanding of what expected value is and suggesting teams should just focus on a player's floor. AE is a better prospect than the guys you're happy they kept because his expected value is higher even if his distribution has a wider range of outcomes.
Or, maybe, for a guy of Pomeranz's level, the Red Sox should have sat it out like some people wanted.You stated the Sox haven't had such a highly rated pitching prospect since Roger Clemens. Which was long before Pavano. There has been one much more recently. Carl Pavano.
You also seem to complete discard distance from the majors when you're evaluating pitching prospects. AE has great stuff but he's years away. Still you tried to put him on par with Giolotti and Urias, who are already ready for the show. AE is in low A ball. He is in no way on par with those guys. Or Reyes in StL.
He's a tantalizing prospect with nasty stuff, who after getting Pedro comps started struggling this season. He also had a stress fracture in his elbow at age 16. It sucks to lose him, but the hand wringing over this has gone to hyperbole. There is a far better chance he never turns into even a quality ML SP - let alone the generational stud people are dreaming of. Because he's 18 years old in low A ball. And there's a crapton of stuff that can go wrong between now and then. So maybe we should just be glad it was only him that went out to get a very good piece that will give these team an immensely better chance this year (and the next two) and we held onto the better guys that have more stable projections.
I have no idea what temporal stabilization is and I can't be alone.If you have an expected value metric that doesn't account for temporal stabilization, then you have a dramatically flawed EV metric. Could you explain further?
Do you realize what Pomeranz's level is right now? Or that prices were only going to get higher the longer they waited?Or, maybe, for a guy of Pomeranz's level, the Red Sox should have sat it out like some people wanted.
Six months ago this trade would have been roughly a 100 page thread of DD hate.Alternatively, people haven't been vocal about their positon w/re to valuing the prospects. I don't know what else to say, but that an 18 year old pitcher is an extremely risky long term projection.
Temporal = timeI have no idea what temporal stabilization is and I can't be alone.
Edit: all im saying is he keeps equating "closer to the majors" with "better" and that's not the way it works.
Here's a quote from my post there:Or, maybe, for a guy of Pomeranz's level, the Red Sox should have sat it out like some people wanted.
In very few rankings or estimations - apparently except you, j44thor and some other posters having a meltdown - is AE one of our top two guys. Those are Yoan Moncada and Andrew Benintendi. And if you scroll back through our back and forth there, you were suggesting Dan Straily would cost YM and AB, my replies pertaining to that.I think we agree and I'm just spitballing a bit and yeah we don't know what the trade market is so we all are speculating, I just found it hyperbolic a bit to suggest the Reds would have no motivation unless it's for our top two guys or similarly the Padres with Pomeranz, etc.
Rich Hill was awesome in 2011.If I see Rich Hill mentioned in this thread one more time, Rocco is going to eat a log of my shit.
I have no idea what temporal stabilization is and I can't be alone.
Edit: all im saying is he keeps equating "closer to the majors" with "better" and that's not the way it works.