POLL: Drew Pomeranz for Anderson Espinoza

[AlNipper49]

OK I've set this poll so that everyone can see who voted for what. Please vote so that we can mock you ten years from now.

The discussion of the trade is HERE

Who "Won" the trade - the term "won" can be however you want to define that term. If "won" means Pomeranz helps the Sox this year and you don't mind losing a high ceiling prospect for that, fine. If you really don't like Pomeranz for Henry Owens much less Anderson Espinoza, then that's fine too.

 

[tims4wins]

Reverse the scenario. If the Sox gave up a 27 year old, 6'6 lefty that is cost controlled for 2.5 years, who had 115 Ks in 102 IP, for one prospect who is in single A, this place would MELT DOWN. So the Sox won.

 

[75cent bleacher seat]

I almost always tend to favor prospects with high ceilings regardless. Why? I live in the past with vivid memories of losing Jeff Bagwell. Am I being logical? Nah! But I cringe every time I hear Bagwell's name, seriously. I hope Pomeranz succeeds.

 

[FelixMantilla]

The Padres traded a guy they acquired for virtually nothing, got a half season of all-star performance and pitched him more innings than he'd pitched in a complete MLB season, then traded him for one of the top prospects in baseball. So the Padres won.

 

[j44thor]

Reverse the scenario. If the Sox gave up a 27 year old, 6'6 lefty that is cost controlled for 2.5 years, who had 115 Ks in 102 IP, for one prospect who is in single A, this place would MELT DOWN. So the Sox won.

Obviously you don't trade pitching when you are trying to win the pennant and beyond, but if the Sox make your trade last season the narrative is how they sold high on a guy with no track record for a pitching prospect the likes they haven't had for decades.

Or in other words, how San Diego feels this AM.

Good trade for both teams.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I think it was necessary for both teams. I don't like it but it makes sense. I can't really tease out the emotional attachment I have to what I've envisioned Espinoza being for the Sox from a rational and objective look at the trade, so I may never like it. But I can't really drum up an argument for it being a bad trade by the Sox even if Pomeranz ends up a middle of the rotation guy. They have a shot at a title and stabilizing the rotation makes that much more likely.

From San Diego's side, they got a super high ceiling guy to continue rebuilding their farm with. A year ago they burned it to the ground. Now they have 2 top 20 guys and some depth. Not bad.

 

[Bunt4aTriple]

I am not a prospect sniffer, but I do know that we still have two pitching prospects with very high ceilings in Groome and Kopech, and now we are closer to Papi having a story book ending to his career. He's living up to his end of the bargain and now DD is as well. I'm happy with the trade.

 

[bg1025]

I voted Red Sox. Really hate losing Espinoza, but We definitely needed a comptent starter to go along with the top three. Not only for this year but next year as well, since there are no exciting FA's after this season. Does this put us over the top this year? Maybe, maybe not. But it give us a fighting shot over the crap that we've been rolling out there. Pomeranz has been pretty damn good this year and seems to be trending up. I'll take 2.5 years of a current all-star over the extremely high flameout potential of an 18 year old kid almost every time.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I don't care about if the other guys think they won or lost the trade*. The Red Sox are much better today than they were yesterday and they gave up nothing that would have directly helped them in the next 2-3 seasons. That's a big win in my book.




*this may explain any issues in longterm relationships I may have had in my life

 

[Rasputin]

I voted Padres. I think Pomeranz is going to be a good pitcher for a few years. I think Espinosa is going to a better pitcher longer.

Of course, the Red Sox are going to be World Series contenders while Pomeranz is here and the Padres probably aren't while Espinoza is there.

 

[TheoShmeo]

If forced to choose, I would have taken the Sox. Even with Espinoza's great promise, we have all seen dozens of can't miss kids in fact miss. He's 18. He's not exactly dominating in his league right now. I get that he might and that many very talented eyes have widened when watching him. Pedro's views on him weigh on me.

But Pomeranz is coming into his own right now, was viewed as a hot prospect when he was drafted and fills a glaring need for a team that is -- with the back of its rotation shored up -- a viable contender. Yep, there are risks. He has not performed on an all star level before the last several months and may not last until the Sox need him to, at least this year. But all in all, I think they did very well in this trade.

The Padres did quite well here, too. They are not contenders and flipped a guy who will not on his own be enough to get them there before he leaves as a free agent for a player who has incredible potential. Smart GMing on their part.

 

[AB in DC]

I'll take the cop-out answer -- I have no idea how to compare the risk that Pomeranz is a flash in the pan vs. the risk that Espinosa turns into nothing much.

 

[smastroyin]

I went Padres because there is almost no way for this to backfire on them. It's the benefit of their shitty position in life that even if Espinoza flames out entirely, the trade is a win for them, because Pomeranz probably wasn't part of their future.

This has plenty of ways to backfire on the Red Sox:

- Pomeranz is terrible or not on the mound enough
- Pomeranz is basically a JAG 5th starter and the Sox don't get into the playoffs this year (both of these things occurring)
- Pomeranz is a good starter but it's not enough to get the Sox into the playoffs (this is still bad but at least you have hope for getting good value out of him)
- Espinoza is better than Pomeranz within the next two years
- Espinoza is Pedro-lite at any point he is under the Padres control (unless Pomeranz actually pulls off the Jon Lester routine and adding the cutter makes him a viable second tier Cy Young candidate for years)

Now, in the abstract, I'm perfectly happy to say that this is a good deal for the Red Sox in a "make them better contenders for the next couple of years" kind of move and at least Pomeranz has a tangible plausible thing that changed (using the cutter effectively) to explain his step up in performance. So, by itself, I can't jump all over this trade from the Red Sox perspective. I just have to hope that there is perhaps some restraint at some point on how many prospects they use to plug the holes in the dike, because I do feel it is bursting.

Put another way, the Sox got a huge benefit (AKA winning one World Series and being the ability to hit fucking Matt Garza away from playing in another) out of not panicking and emptying their farm system in 2006 when the injuries started piling up. I'm not saying DD is doing that, but he has sold a shitton of talent in the past 9 months, and doesn't appear shy about selling more. And no matter how smart you are, when you sell out completely for the now, you start a cycle of constantly trying to play catch-up. So my concerns are more strategic than specific.

Last, a hearty fuck you to Clay Buccholz and Joe Kelly for your vast amounts of completely falling on your stupid faces this year. If just one of you had managed to be an acceptable back of rotation starter, the Red Sox would be in much better position.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

I don't like that we had to trade Espinoza, but I'm not ready to declare either team the winner yet.

My biggest concern with Pomeranz is his ability, or lack of, to pitch 180-200+ innings in a season.

 

[Devizier]

Just for shits and giggles, here are the pitchers from the top twenty of the BA100 in 2011:

5. Julio Teheran, rhp, Braves
6. Jeremy Hellickson, rhp, Rays
7. Aroldis Chapman, lhp, Reds
11. Jameson Taillon, rhp, Pirates
13. Shelby Miller, rhp, Cardinals
15. Matt Moore, lhp, Rays
16. Michael Pineda, rhp, Mariners
18. John Lamb, lhp, Royals
19. Mike Montgomery, lhp, Royals
20. Chris Sale, lhp, White Sox

(Pomeranz was 61st on this list, for reference).

Of this list, Teheran (19), Taillon (19), and Miller (20) were the youngest.

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

I almost always tend to favor prospects with high ceilings regardless. Why? I live in the past with vivid memories of losing Jeff Bagwell. Am I being logical? Nah! But I cringe every time I hear Bagwell's name, seriously. I hope Pomeranz succeeds.

understood--I have similar feelings. But the Bagwell trade was for a middle reliever. Not the same situation. I like what DD did here.

 

[johnnywayback]

Anderson Espinoza way well be the best prospect traded in 2016 (depending on how you feel about Joey Gallo). The Padres got him for Drew Pomeranz. The Padres won the trade.

That doesn't mean the Red Sox won't be glad they did it. It just means that, if you measure players solely by their value as fungible currency, I think the Sox gave up more than they got. Sometimes you can live with that, depending on the trade market, which none of us have any real idea about -- i.e., maybe it's not like the Kimbrel trade, where we could have gotten Darren O'Day for nothing but money.

If no pitcher who is clearly better than Pomeranz is going to be available this off-season (I doubt it, but it's possible!), and if no other pitcher who is clearly better than Clay Buchholz was available for a reasonable price right now (I doubt it, but it's possible!), then this isn't Dombrowski being stupid, it's just the Padres being lucky.

 

[opes]

I voted Sox as well. Basically for the reasons tims4wins mentioned. Alot of good counter points in this thread from members though. Smas' is right that the friars lose nothing in this trade. All upside for them. Espinoza could turn into the next Kershaw, Pom'z arm could fall off tomorrow, and we all commit collective suicide in 5 + yrs.

But it boils down to this for me: We get a cost controlled pitcher, who just happens to be one of the better pitchers this season, increased odds to get to the world series and for what? An 18 yr old kid who is wholly unproven?
People, deep breaths now. Obtaining really good young cost controlled pitching for 1 prospect is very hard to accomplish. And we didnt have to give up Moncada or Benintendi.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The error bars on both guys at the moment seem particularly large so it's hard to say who won the trade. Who won the Miller / E-Rod trade?

Teams like to win championships now rather than figure out if they have the ability to do it later. Worse case scenario I guess would be the Red Sox keep Espinoza, don't get in the playoffs, and then when Espinoza is a stud, they aren't able to compete. I won't love watching Espinoza become a stud for the Padres (if he does) but I will like seeing Pomeranz pitching rather than the drek the Red Sox have been running out there.

Pomeranz doesn't have to be great to pay immediate dividends, and if he is great, so much better.

I think we can all agree though that it would have been better for at leaste one of Buch or Kelly to actually pitch like a major leaguer. Sigh.

 

[grimshaw]

I think the Sox win. With the absolute drek they have trotted out, all he'd have to be is a league average pitcher to improve the team a win or two which is difficult to do with a July acquisition. Even if he's 3 year trend Pomeranz rather than all-star, he's better than the short term garbage they have been unable to develop. His quality start capability will also have a big trickle down on the overworked bullpen which could also add another win.

Also - a team other than the Red Sox has managed to develop a pitcher in his mid-20's so unless he does a 180, this is a nice bonus.

The wild card is whether he can handle all the extra innings if they also make the playoffs. Dead arm or even health issues could completely kill everything, so I hope they try and ease up on trying to squeeze the extra inning out of him.

I hated giving up Espinoza and was hoping it would be Devers and Raudes (another low A kid with upside), but, like the Greyjoys they paid the iron price.

 

[foulkehampshire]

Padres win because they got Drew for peanuts and just flipped him for a top 10 pitching prospect. Also, nothing to lose because they aren't expected to compete for a while. Even if Espinoza flames out.

Clearly more on the line for the Sox if Drew doesn't work out.

 

[doc]

I think the idea of "winning a trade" is a bit naive. The teams exchanged what each perceived as value, we got a pitcher that adds to the rotation and we hope puts us in better shape to get into the playoffs because we think we have a team that is peaking to make a playoff run now. San Diego gets value in Espinoza reaching his potential of a young, cost controlled top of the rotation starter. Lots of things can go right or wrong on both sides, so you can't really evaluate this for 3-5 years.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

The error bars on both guys at the moment seem particularly large so it's hard to say who won the trade. Who won the Miller / E-Rod trade?....

The Yankees.

As for this trade, it works well for both teams, and I would think both teams feel really good about it today. Tomorrow? Next year? 2019? Who knows?

But I think most of us would have been disappointed if DDski didn't get starting pitching help to bolster this team's playoff chances. I'm not sure that giving up a lesser package for Hellickson would have been better (I think the Sox were shooting for a better quality and controllable arm).

Bigger picture, we've kept the Killer B's, the catchers, and the top 3 hitting prospects, and still have two high upside arms in the system, while adding Price, Kimbrel, Pomeranz, Hill, Ziegler and Martinez. I'd say Dombrowski is doing his job pretty well.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I've been going back and forth on this trade for the better part of 16 hours and here's where I stand:

1. You can't keep every prospect. DD and Hazen's jobs are to make sure that they keep the right ones but even still, there are times when bad trades are made. The ghost of Jeff Bagwell can't haunt every decision you make.

2. It used to drive me nuts that Cherington would keep prospects way too long and always seemed to sell low instead of selling high. This is not a good organizational philosophy. I'd be a huge hypocrite if I ripped DD/Hazen for doing the thing that I wished BC would have done.

3. Espinoza seems to be an incredibly good prospect, but with Groome and Kopech doing (or hopefully doing) some good stuff in the minors, does that make Espinoza redundant? Personally, I don't think that a bunch of good, young arms can be redundant, but apparently DD does.

4. Did the Sox get the best pitcher on the market? Pomeranz is 27-years-old and is cost controlled for the next two-and-a-half years. Rich Hill (the other big fish) is 36, is working on a one-year deal and is a season removed from being a member of the Long Island Ducks. I'd rather have Pomeranz than Hill -- I'm waiting for the inevitable and for Hill to turn back into a pumpkin.

5. The Sox have a mammoth offense and shit pitching. Not adding pitching to this team would be border-line criminal. If Clay Buchholz could have pitched even slightly better than he has, I'm not sure if the Sox would have needed Pomeranz. As always, Clay is to blame. Seriously, fuck that guy. The Sox are in a good position where they're built to win now and in the future.

With all that said, I think that the Sox are the winners right now. I hate to trade away Espinoza, but man, I really hate watching Clay Buchholz and a cast of thousands take the mound every fourth and fifth day.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I look at it like this. I feel on the surface the Padres won. However, if Drew Pomeranz rights the ship and the Sox win then obviously the Sox won the trade. Think of Beckett/Lowell for Hanley/Sanchez. Sox ended up winning that trade and not because of the talent they received but because they won. That's the real barometer on who wins a trade and who loses one. Just my opinion.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

The error bars on both guys at the moment seem particularly large so it's hard to say who won the trade. Who won the Miller / E-Rod trade?

I like Minneapolis Miller's answer, but the real answer is "too soon to tell", and we really won't have an answer to this question for at least another 5 years, unless one of them dies or kills someone. And if it's Pomeranz who does the killin' or dyin', then Espinoza could still do the same which would result in a tie.

 

[bankshot1]

I went win/win for both.

This is like solving for a internal rate of return except you only have a feel for the present value (Pomeranz), the future value (Espinoza) is uncertain, and N is probably 3 to 5 years

Sox got a pitcher they needed to compete for the division and hopefully the WS, and maybe will be a solid guy for '17 and '18 (or traded). The Pads got high ceiling hope that may not be realized at the MLB level for at least 3 years.

 

[burstnbloom]

The Padres win this trade easily. Pomeranz was acquired by them for a pittance and will have nothing to do with the team when they are eventually good again. They also win because Espinosa is the highest ranked prospect traded since Addison Russel. Last year, only Norris comes close @ 18 and he was traded for David Price. I think it is a bit of a false equivalency but the level of prospect they gave up for a guy that has some pretty obvious regression coming seems insane to me. He has a BABIP, strandrate and ERA that are destined to regress. Don't get me wrong, he's a pretty good pitcher, but once that stuff regresses, he's likely a 2-3 win pitcher. A guy like that is a very valuable, mid rotation kind of starter and this team needs that, but the last time a 2.5 win pitcher was traded for a top prospect, it was widely regarded as a terrible trade (Shark/Russell).

 

[Scoops Bolling]

There are two fallacies that are getting tossed around here frequently, typically combined into one, that should not be coming up at a place like SoSH.

1) "The Padres got Pomeranz for nothing". This is entirely irrelevant. Past costs do not determine present prices.

2) "The Padres got a top prospect for him, they can't lose". Again, that's not how this works. The Padres are taking a clear risk by taking Espinoza instead of seeking a package of players, or a less risky prospect. If Espinoza goes all Hunter Harvey (Orioles pitching prospect) and blows out an arm and misses multiple seasons, they lose. We can't really know what other offers they had on the table, but in this pitching market (or the offseason's) they were in the catbird seat, so one would imagine this wasn't their only option.

 

[Y Kant Jody Reed]

Surprised no one in this thread or the other has yet invoked Schilling and Anderson for Mike Boddicker—1988's a long time ago but a similar thing, a flawed division winner trades away a raw power arm for two and a half years of a 2/3 starter.

We win the division twice with Boddicker (by 1 and 2 games; he's lights-out for two months in '88 and gives us 228 innings at a 122 ERA+ behind Clemens in '90), for all the good that does us against those As juggernauts in the ALCS.

Schilling gives the Orioles 46 good bullpen innings in 1990. Then the Orioles send him, Pete Harnisch and Steve Finley to Houston for Glenn Davis (oops!). He's mediocre for the Astros in 1991, and they trade him to the Phillies for Jason Grimsley (oops!). He wins 30 games for them in 1992/1993, 31 if you count his shutout in Game 5 of the 1993 World Series (he had also been NLCS MVP on the strength of two no-decisions, quirkily). 1993 is Mike Boddicker's final season (though 1990, his last season for the Red Sox, was his last good one).

Schilling doesn't actually make his first All-Star game until 1997, age 30.

(Meanwhile, around this time, Brady Anderson has that very weird late-career power surge for the 96/97 Orioles, who ride Angelos's checkbook to two lopsided losses in the ALCS.)

Who "won" that trade? Of the Red Sox and Orioles (and Astros and Phillies), only one team won a World Series with help from Boddicker, Anderson or Schilling.

 

[tims4wins]

I don't understand the reasoning behind how the Padres acquired Pomeranz. I don't see how it is relevant. Just because they got him for nothing, it doesn't mean this was a great trade for them - if he is a top 20 or top 30 starter in MLB for the next 4-5 years, and Espinoza flames out, then they will have traded away a very valuable pitcher for nothing. Obviously both of those are big ifs, but how they got the guy doesn't factor into who won the trade IMO. However, what you CAN say is that how the Padres acquired Pomeranz to begin with was a HUGE win since they turned it into Espinoza.

 

[pjheff]

And the Sox got Espinoza for only $1.8 M and turned him into a 27 year old cost-controlled All-Star.

 

[burstnbloom]

I don't understand the reasoning behind how the Padres acquired Pomeranz. I don't see how it is relevant. Just because they got him for nothing, it doesn't mean this was a great trade for them - if he is a top 20 or top 30 starter in MLB for the next 4-5 years, and Espinoza flames out, then they will have traded away a very valuable pitcher for nothing. Obviously both of those are big ifs, but how they got the guy doesn't factor into who won the trade IMO. However, what you CAN say is that how the Padres acquired Pomeranz to begin with was a HUGE win since they turned it into Espinoza.

Maybe I should have articulated that point a little bitter since it has now been taken the wrong way twice. Bringing that up was merely to point out that this guy was worth much much less just a couple of months ago and his numbers make him a candidate for regression. He appears to have been overvalued on this market due to some unsustainable numbers. I realize that what he cost the Padres has no bearing on his value today, just that the gulf between those two is sizable after a short time. I hope I'm way off and the guy performs very well and AE doesn't end up being what we think he could be, but I think the expectation was that if he (AE) were to be moved it would be for someone with a longer/better track record of success.

 

[OCD SS]

I took the cop out option because it's too hard to declare who'll win when the goals are on completely different time lines. This deal privileges the short-term for the Sox, and while they may not wind up with the best player in long run, the team is built to win now.

I wonder if a better SP would've been on the table for Benintendi, which is a deal I know I'd be in the minority in preferring...

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Last year, only Norris comes close @ 18 and he was traded for David Price. I think it is a bit of a false equivalency but the level of prospect they gave up for a guy that has some pretty obvious regression coming seems insane to me. He has a BABIP, strandrate and ERA that are destined to regress. Don't get me wrong, he's a pretty good pitcher, but once that stuff regresses, he's likely a 2-3 win pitcher. A guy like that is a very valuable, mid rotation kind of starter and this team needs that, but the last time a 2.5 win pitcher was traded for a top prospect, it was widely regarded as a terrible trade (Shark/Russell).

Norris was ranked 18 (mlb.com had at 17) and had actually made it to the majors in 2014. Labour was a top 10-ish prospect and Boyd a top 15-ish prospect. Some GM decided to trade what turned out to be 2.5WAR of David Price - who pitched out of his mind for those 11 starts - for those three pitchers.

Who won that trade?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I took the cop out option because it's too hard to declare who'll win when the goals are on completely different time lines. This deal privileges the short-term for the Sox, and while they may not wind up with the best player in long run, the team is built to win now.

I wonder if a better SP would've been on the table for Benintendi, which is a deal I know I'd be in the minority in preferring...

Of the names most frequently bandied about as likely available over the next couple weeks (Pomeranz, Hill, Teheran, Santana, etc), I don't think any of them are objectively worth giving up Benintendi.

So the better question is whether or not dangling Benintendi could shake loose an otherwise unavailable (and substantially better) pitcher? I'm willing to bet that of the pitchers that the Red Sox would pull the trigger on, most are of enough importance/value to their current team such that they'd probably ask for more than just Benintendi to make the deal.

 

[smastroyin]

There are two fallacies that are getting tossed around here frequently, typically combined into one, that should not be coming up at a place like SoSH.

1) "The Padres got Pomeranz for nothing". This is entirely irrelevant. Past costs do not determine present prices.

2) "The Padres got a top prospect for him, they can't lose". Again, that's not how this works. The Padres are taking a clear risk by taking Espinoza instead of seeking a package of players, or a less risky prospect. If Espinoza goes all Hunter Harvey (Orioles pitching prospect) and blows out an arm and misses multiple seasons, they lose. We can't really know what other offers they had on the table, but in this pitching market (or the offseason's) they were in the catbird seat, so one would imagine this wasn't their only option.

1 can be relevant if you consider that Beane gave up on Pomeranz (if you consider Yonder Alonso nothing) and Beane is generally regarded as a good judge of talent. However, I agree that is not the point most are making. (and that Beane isn't infallible) However, if Dave Stewart had been the one who gave up on Pomeranz I'd feel better, if you take my meaning.

2 is really context and goal dependent. Not all prospects are created equal. The simple chance that every prospect has a good chance to fail doesn't necessarily mean that accumulating more is better. Because even accounting only for successes, accumulating 25 Deven Marrero's (hey he made the majors, most don't!) doesn't make up for 1 Xander Bogaerts. I'm sure you understand why and won't condescend to you and explain it. And you have to take risk to accumulate high performance guys - they are rare for a reason. So at the end of the day, it's a matter of strategy and what you are looking for. Yes, in two years you could say "oh, Padres, you should have taken offer XYZ I've made up in my head instead of this one" but again, the risk is presumed from the beginning.

 

[nvalvo]

This is a classic time-shifting prospect for veteran trade. Both teams got what they needed; fans of both teams probably feel that they gave up a lot.

Our discount rate is particularly extreme right now because we have a league-leading offense led by a Hall of Fame slugger in his last season, and it's not all that clear that any team in the AL has fewer question marks. If Pomeranz makes a big impact in our ability to contend for pennants through 2018 (also: is he a candidate for an extension?), we make out well.

I imagine that Espinoza has as good odds as any 18 year old ever does to become a big league starter, so in that sense, San Diego did amazingly well in this deal. If he becomes a Jose Fernandez type in a few years, they're thrilled, but insofar as we know now that we're dealing away a chance at that kind of outcome, that doesn't really affect how we should feel about the deal today. There are a lot of really good eighteen year-old pitching prospects, although very few this good; there are even fewer Jose Fernandezes.

If Espinoza turns into a pitcher as good as Drew Pomeranz, what then?

I took the cop out option because it's too hard to declare who'll win when the goals are on completely different time lines. This deal privileges the short-term for the Sox, and while they may not wind up with the best player in long run, the team is built to win now.

I wonder if a better SP would've been on the table for Benintendi, which is a deal I know I'd be in the minority in preferring...

I understand why you'd prefer to deal Benintendi, even if I don't quite agree. We have a long track record of scouting, drafting and producing high-end outfielders: we've littered the league with Murphys and Mosses and Murtons and Margots and Reddicks, and obviously we're playing a home grown outfield of Bradley, Betts and Brentz pretty regularly to good effect. Kalish and Westmoreland warrant mention, too.

In contrast, we haven't produced an ace-type SP since Lester, and it had been a minute before then.

 

[OCD SS]

Of the names most frequently bandied about as likely available over the next couple weeks (Pomeranz, Hill, Teheran, Santana, etc), I don't think any of them are objectively worth giving up Benintendi.

So the better question is whether or not dangling Benintendi could shake loose an otherwise unavailable (and substantially better) pitcher? I'm willing to bet that of the pitchers that the Red Sox would pull the trigger on, most are of enough importance/value to their current team such that they'd probably ask for more than just Benintendi to make the deal.

I agree, but as long as this hypothetical does not include one of the other "big 4" and other pieces (up to Kopech on the prospect lists), then I would be OK with using Benintendi as the centerpiece. This stems from my own feeling that potential aces are so rare that they should never be given up, especially vs. an OFer that would play LF for the Sox but would have surplus value to another team as a CFer (their relative proximity to the majors evening out this value a bit).

 

[Drek]

There are two fallacies that are getting tossed around here frequently, typically combined into one, that should not be coming up at a place like SoSH.

1) "The Padres got Pomeranz for nothing". This is entirely irrelevant. Past costs do not determine present prices.

2) "The Padres got a top prospect for him, they can't lose". Again, that's not how this works. The Padres are taking a clear risk by taking Espinoza instead of seeking a package of players, or a less risky prospect. If Espinoza goes all Hunter Harvey (Orioles pitching prospect) and blows out an arm and misses multiple seasons, they lose. We can't really know what other offers they had on the table, but in this pitching market (or the offseason's) they were in the catbird seat, so one would imagine this wasn't their only option.

I disagree. The Padres traded a very low value player in Alonzo for Pomeranz, a clear gain in value for them but a gain in a window they can't be particularly competitive in. Trading Pomeranz for Espinoza at least gives hope that they'll arrive at a time when they can compete.

No matter what Pomeranz or Espinoza do going forward this is a win for San Diego on that basis alone. They traded cheaply acquired talent for incredibly expensive talent that better aligns with their potential window of opportunity. Even if Pomeranz wins the next three Cy Young awards and Espinoza blows his elbow out in 2017 the Padres made the right move with regards to team building.

You can argue both sides for Boston. Going for it now with an elite offense already assembled and having a collection of career years versus waiting for the potential payoff of Espinoza. Now I'd argue that this is the right move for Boston as Espinoza is several years away, years that will be in Price's peak, when Betts, Bogaerts, and Bradley are under team control, when Dustin Pedroia is still close enough to his peak to be a top tier 2B, and for this season at least when David Ortiz is still the baddest motherfucker on the planet. Their window is right now and Pomeranz is a relatively young pitcher who lines up smack dab on top of that window of opportunity. There aren't any better options in this year's FA market and Pomeranz costs a pittance of even a mediocre FA SP. This deal lets them avoid touching the near ML ready top prospects, Moncada and Benintendi.

It can backfire for Boston if Pomeranz pitches poorly. The Sox have bought risk in exchange for potential here, but they've also bought present day production. As the saying goes: Potential means you ain't done shit yet. The Sox aren't a team waiting on potential, they're a team in the hunt today, July 15th, coming out of the ASB in a tie for the Wild Card and just behind in the division. They're at that point despite a gaping hole of suck from the #4 and #5 starters and dealing with various other injuries. The roster has been shored up with the additions of Hill and Ziegler already, both acquired relatively cheaply.

The Padres won this specific trade because it was a clear and easy choice for them to make and they're in the business of winning trades right now. The Red Sox might not "win" the trade but winning trades is secondary to winning games, winning the pennant, and hopefully winning the World Series. That is what the Red Sox are focused on and sometimes that means you make a trade that you might not, in five years time, assess as a win with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Are Andy Marte and Engel Beltre allowed to participate in this poll? Btw, both of them still have raw legs, even after all this time.

 

[Marbleheader]

The Red Sox won because they can't develop a pitcher to save their lives. They had to trade for one and kept Benintendi and Moncada in the process. I would have liked to how Espinosa developed, I have his Bowman Chrome rookie ready to take off in value. History tells me the Sox would have screwed up with him and got nothing in return when he became the next Rubby De la Rosa. Side note: stop comparing pitchers to Pedro. In over a century of Baseball, there's only been one. Every latin pitcher to come through the system has been compared to a god, and it's foolish.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

Painful but necessary trade for the Red Sox. I couldn't care less whether it works for San Diego or not.

Fangraph's KATOH has Espinoza worth 6.2 WAR through age 28 heading into the season, and I don't think his A-ball numbers have improved that forecast. Pomeranz only has to average 2.5 WAR per season to make that equal probable value. After putting up a 2.5 already so far this season, I'd be surprised if he doesn't manage that.

Apply any kind of future discounting and it becomes clear that the math for this trade works out in our favor, and that's just in pure value - not counting the importance of GFIN.

I think the biggest question with this deal is whether the Red Sox are ever going to be able to develop a top of the rotation starter. As far as I'm concerned, the last time we did that was a guy named Roger.

 

[aminahyaquin]

I am not a prospect sniffer, but I do know that we still have two pitching prospects with very high ceilings in Groome and Kopech, and now we are closer to Papi having a story book ending to his career. He's living up to his end of the bargain and now DD is as well. I'm happy with the trade.

I agree. Also, pitching is our Achilles heel. This is a great trade. All the best to Espinoza.

and BTW saw this early AM is likely to make the bullpen a thing of Beauty a little ways out in time ...if prospects stay healthy and train well : a kid that admires Dustin Pedroia's work ethic and has this much mojo so young...as you said kind of wonderful for the Sox signing Jason Groome as well as this Pomeranz deal.

http://highschoolsports.nj.com/news/article/596344900247129389/report-jason-groome-signs-365-million-deal-with-red-sox/

 

[smastroyin]

Are Andy Marte and Engel Beltre allowed to participate in this poll? Btw, both of them still have raw legs, even after all this time.

Can I ask nicely again that we stop with the pithy banal reminders that prospects often fail? It was funny for like, one post. There have been at least a dozen now, and I can regurgitate these types of posts from every single trade we have ever talked about.

 

[shaggydog2000]

I think the fact that I've done a mental 180 on this trade a few time since it was announced means that purely in terms of player market value, it was a pretty even one. I think if the Sox have scouted Pomeranz and feel like his improvement is real (not that he is an all-star level player, but a quality mid rotation starter), then 2 1/2 years of that pitcher in a market the way it is right now for acquiring pitching is pretty good. All pitchers are gambles, and one with a longer track record of success on the level of Pomeranz' would cost us a hell of a lot more than Espinoza. They took a calculated risk on him, but I think the potential return is worth it. And Espinoza is a risky guy to give up, he has ace level upside, but 18 year old pitchers in A ball just have so many things that can go wrong. No matter how things work out with the players, the trade math seems to work out.

 

[chrisfont9]

Being in Seattle, the comp I am tempted to make is Taijuan Walker. Different body type, but as a teenager he was just as hyped for a similar repertoire. At age 19 he was holding his own in AA and made his Mariner debut at age 20 after tearing through the minors. And now... he's fine, but even after killing it at AAA and a strong debut and lots of hype this year about what he could be, he's OK but not a game changer. By comparison, Espinoza is only in A ball and not putting up eye-popping numbers.

Is it a fair comparison? Maybe not, Walker seems to have some issues with his competitiveness if you believe some of the innuendo, whereas Espinoza sounds like a solid character (so far), but it is a reminder that even the most can't miss guy can get to the majors, just like everyone said, and not exactly transform the team. I wouldn't trade Walker for Pomeranz right now, but knowing what I know now I'd have traded teenager future-hope Walker for present-day Pomeranz.

 

[pokey_reese]

My Initial reaction to this trade (when a coworker told me in the bathroom that we got Pomeranz for "a pitcher named Andrews or something?") I was pretty upset. Then I came to this site, scoured the internet for a bit, and started to feel a little better about it, before finally settling in on something like, 'The Padres 'won' the trade, but I can see why DD made it and it probably wasn't a terrible move now, regardless of how it turns out.'

1.) It makes the Red Sox better in the short- to medium-term. However, the degree to which it improves the team is debatable. Looking at just ROS projections, it seems like Drew could add 1 to 2 wins over the second half, compared to Buchholz (or whoever you choose to have him replace in your mind). Then maybe another 1.5-2.5 wins in 2017/8, depending on how much you believe in the new Drew (as a real improvement and not luck/outlier year).

2.) The Sox are in a position where the marginal wins are worth a bit more to them, given the division and wild card standings as they are now, plus the offense and Ortiz.

3.) For all of the arguments about how a kid in low-A is essentially a lottery ticket, studies like this one http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/mlb-prospect-surplus-values-2016-updated-edition/ suggest that this is false in context, and that a pitcher in the top-tier of prospect rankings (which already incorporate temporal distance from the major leagues) has a greater than 50/50 shot of making meaningful contributions in the big leagues. Espinoza, while raw and young, is not some long-shot unicorn, but in fact likely to have a positive WAR while under team control.

Basically, whether or not you like this trade depends on a few questions:
Is the Drew of the last 2 months the real performance level we should expect going forward?
What is the likelihood that Espinoza becomes at least as good as Drew (career numbers) or Drew (2016 version)?
Will good pitching be as hard to find in 2018-2024 as it is now?
Will the Sox be in a position to compete for titles during that time period?

In the end, this move probably costs us a few wins over time, and is very likely to be a loss in terms of surplus value over the controlled years of both players, but front-loading those wins when we KNOW that we are in a position to be competitive vs potentially spreading them out over years when we aren't make the risk acceptable. I'm not sure that I make this deal 6 times out of 10, but the amount of conflict I have over it probably means that it doesn't lean too strongly in either direction. It's rare to see this kind of 1-for-1 star for top prospect trade, and this is probably why.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I went Red Sox, though it was tough call over the cop out option of both being winners.

The Padres got a very good prospect that is extremely far away. His rankings are based purely on his stuff, which hasn't been as dominant this year as it was last. His potential is tantalizing, to be sure, but he's also thrown 135 IP in Low A ball and has an elbow stress fracture on his resume at age 16. He's NOT going to be Pedro, despite the comps of his stuff. And he's not going to be Jose Fernandez or Doc Gooden, who tore up the league at 19/20.

The Sox got exactly what they needed. A solid pitcher, with two more years of control after this (which is huge given the FA market next year has no one) who is young and seemingly coming into his own. Looking at the big picture of Pomeranz as opposed to the narrative, it's certainly not guaranteed he will be this guy from now on, but it certainly suggests he's at least a #3 or even a #2.

Prospects are valued for coming to fruition as cheap players or being used as trade fodder. The Sox managed to make this deal without touching any of the 4Bs or YM, so they'll have plenty of the former for the next handful of years. I'm ok with them using AE as the latter as I see the probability of DP being what they intend for the next 2.5 years to be much higher than SD's hopes for AE in 4-5 seasons.

This isn't going to be Anderson/Bagwell and you can't choose a winner for a while, but if both sides get what they want, I think everyone would be happy.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Can I ask nicely again that we stop with the pithy banal reminders that prospects often fail? It was funny for like, one post. There have been at least a dozen now, and I can regurgitate these types of posts from every single trade we have ever talked about.

With all due respect, when we are being asked to weigh in on who "won" a trade immediately after its consummated, and especially when it involves a low minors prospect, getting upset at a shot at prospect humpers misses the point.

We have heard wailing and gnashing of teeth on minor leaguers for veteran players before and the reality is nobody in the world, let alone the information-limited baseball nerds here (is it possible that DD knows something about Espinoza's habits that we don't?) has any clue who "won" this deal.

That said, everyone has their right to weigh in on who got the best end of the deal (without either player involved having played even one out for their new teams). But those of us who think this whole thing is silly should be able to reflect that. I mean, when the Sox gave up Marte many here were certain they got fleeced on the trade. That turned out to be so far from reality that its still laughable.