The off-season

simplicio

lurker
Apr 11, 2012
1,384
I'm guessing that Seattle will consider Kyle Lewis a non-starter. He's their top prospect and really the only one they have that's great. That said, I'd be interested in something like Edwin Diaz and Tyler O'Neill+ for Pomeranz. Of course, if the Red Sox are going to trade Pomeranz for a reliever, they might be inclined to just move Pomeranz to the pen and move on.

I don't see Dombrowski as the type to get caught up in sunk cost and at this point, Anderson Espinoza is sunk cost, so use Pomeranz in whatever way best helps the club, whether that be moving to the pen or as a trade chip. With Sale, Price and Eduardo on the roster, he's probably the 4th lefty on the depth chart, so unless they want to burn an option on Eduardo, Pomeranz is probably the first one out of the rotation.

I'm thinking the best use of him as a resource is as a trade chip. Seattle might not be the best offer they can get, considering how thin their farm is, but there are probably a few teams out there with better farm systems that would be interested. He represents a nice opportunity to replenish that minor league depth a little. Much more so than Buchholz at least.
But they're probably more concerned with getting under the threshold than restocking the farm right now, don't you think? Buchholz seems like the clear man to trade, unless someone really blows you away with an offer on Pomeranz.

Kyle Lewis, exciting as he is, is still a lower ranked prospect than Espinoza, and he's in the middle of rehabbing a knee injury that could be catastrophic to his career in the outfield. That's a serious gamble to take for a proven starter with all star upside. I get that the Mariners' system is pretty thin and the optics of losing him would be bad for them, but I don't think a conversation about Pomeranz starts without him in the deal.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,197
I'm wholeheartedly enjoying the Dave Dombrowski era.

Dance around all you like about the prospects he's moved, but the guy identifies a need and acquires a solution to it.
What was the need here? We already had the reigning Cy Young Award winner, the runner-up for the previous year's Cy Young Award, an emerging starter we thought highly enough of to give up our one of the game's best pitching prospects, a young lefty who throws an effortless 95 and has shown flashes of brilliance, a guy who was an All-Star last year, and a guy who at times has been one of the best pitchers in the game. That's a very, very good rotation.

To me, a better way to describe Dombrowski would be: "He is dead-set on improving the team's chances of winning the World Series in the short term, regardless of the ramifications for the team's long-term competitiveness." Not that he is willing to pay a higher exchange rate to convert future value to present value -- he just isn't interested in what the exchange rate it at all. That's even what he said on MLB Network last night -- something like (paraphrasing), "In baseball, four years is a lifetime away, so you can't really worry about that."

That's a perfectly coherent philosophy, one many fans agree with. He's certainly executing it aggressively! If Kimbrel reverses his downturn, Price gets straightened out as his long contract continues, Pomeranz returns to the form he had for a while last year, and Sale stays healthy, you might even say he's executed it well. And you certainly can't say it's boring.

I just don't agree with the philosophy. Not because I love my binkies and really want Portland to win the Eastern League next year. But because I do think you can, and should, worry about four years from now. I think you have to balance improving your short-term chances with your long-term competitiveness. I think you have to ask whether you really need another front-line starter if it means trading four key pieces of a rapidly-thinning farm system. I think you have to care about including Logan Allen as the extra piece of a market-setting trade for a closer with declining peripherals. I think you have to get an A-ball player back from Milwaukee in a Thornburg trade.

Two of the philosophies that Theo Epstein lived by were: 1) "Resist the urge to try to build a superteam" and 2) "Focus on building a player development machine." Those philosophies are about laying a sustainable foundation for long-term competitiveness. You try to win 90 games every year and hope that, every so often, you get on a run and fly a flag. Yes, sometimes you trade some future value for present value, even at a high exchange rate. But you see long-term competitiveness as part of what you work on every day, whether that means "hoarding" prospects or trading for Jarrod Saltalamacchia at the deadline a year before you're going to need him as your starting C.

That's the approach I prefer, and for a long time that's what the Red Sox were doing, and I think it's how we became one of the game's strongest and most successful franchises over the last 13 years. The Red Sox under Dombrowski aren't doing that anymore. And that's why, even though I can't wait to watch Chris Sale pitch, I don't love what's happening here.
 

Georgy Zhukov

lurker
Aug 19, 2016
481
One thing that's for certain, the scouting and player development team has their work cut out for them next the next three years/drafts to restock the farm with some major league talent. Despite DD's "win now" philosophy, I don't see this team turning into the Yankees in the next decade because our core is still very young.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,327
Weeks ago doesn't matter now. The market has changed as potential suitors have moved on to alternatives. There's always a chance that a team will come close to meeting his price but right now it seems unlikely.
Some team is going to offer more than 3/60.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
. I think you have to balance improving your short-term chances with your long-term competitiveness. I think you have to ask whether you really need another front-line starter if it means trading four key pieces of a rapidly-thinning farm system. I think you have to care about including Logan Allen as the extra piece of a market-setting trade for a closer with declining peripherals. I think you have to get an A-ball player back from Milwaukee in a Thornburg trade.

Two of the philosophies that Theo Epstein lived by were: 1) "Resist the urge to try to build a superteam" and 2) "Focus on building a player development machine." Those philosophies are about laying a sustainable foundation for long-term competitiveness. You try to win 90 games every year and hope that, every so often, you get on a run and fly a flag. Yes, sometimes you trade some future value for present value, even at a high exchange rate. But you see long-term competitiveness as part of what you work on every day, whether that means "hoarding" prospects or trading for Jarrod Saltalamacchia at the deadline a year before you're going to need him as your starting C.

That's the approach I prefer, and for a long time that's what the Red Sox were doing, and I think it's how we became one of the game's strongest and most successful franchises over the last 13 years. The Red Sox under Dombrowski aren't doing that anymore. And that's why, even though I can't wait to watch Chris Sale pitch, I don't love what's happening here.
So while I appreciate the well thought out post there's some holes. We can quibble all day about the "superteam" but I believe Theo has taken some responsibility for not resisting the urge as much as his defenders love to pin his mistakes on ownership. BC deserves a lot of the credit for cleaning up that rubble, but again even he couldn't resist the luxury of using/flexing big market money on mistakes like Castillo and Craig with Pablo tbd. The blunt truth is that the Red Sox cannot declare themselves "not competitive" and "build" a team the full on objective way. Theo Lunhow and shockingly the NYY (for the time being) have gotten amazing rope and the money NYY is losing/(may lose) can't really be dismissed.

Consequently, you get a mix of satisfying two Gods Winning and Development. The development hasn't produced pitching necessarily but it's hard to argue with the position player results.Therefore, the Red Sox brought in the foremost GM on acquiring expensive pitching talent, DD, and he's done exactly that.

As for the player development machine ? Well the Red Sox outfield should be fine for an extended period of time. They used the maybe unprecedented advantage of having two top 5 picks in YM and AB and cashed one in for the type of pitcher you rarely ever see traded. Does it put more pressure on Devers Groome and Travis as well as all the scouts ? Yeah. It doesn't hurt that infield and C are staffed by young guys under control as well.

As for the critiques on dealing for RP ? The price is astronomical these days. Theo experienced that most noticeably.
 

simplicio

lurker
Apr 11, 2012
1,384
What was the need here? We already had the reigning Cy Young Award winner, the runner-up for the previous year's Cy Young Award, an emerging starter we thought highly enough of to give up our one of the game's best pitching prospects, a young lefty who throws an effortless 95 and has shown flashes of brilliance, a guy who was an All-Star last year, and a guy who at times has been one of the best pitchers in the game. That's a very, very good rotation.

To me, a better way to describe Dombrowski would be: "He is dead-set on improving the team's chances of winning the World Series in the short term, regardless of the ramifications for the team's long-term competitiveness." Not that he is willing to pay a higher exchange rate to convert future value to present value -- he just isn't interested in what the exchange rate it at all. That's even what he said on MLB Network last night -- something like (paraphrasing), "In baseball, four years is a lifetime away, so you can't really worry about that."

That's a perfectly coherent philosophy, one many fans agree with. He's certainly executing it aggressively! If Kimbrel reverses his downturn, Price gets straightened out as his long contract continues, Pomeranz returns to the form he had for a while last year, and Sale stays healthy, you might even say he's executed it well. And you certainly can't say it's boring.

I just don't agree with the philosophy. Not because I love my binkies and really want Portland to win the Eastern League next year. But because I do think you can, and should, worry about four years from now. I think you have to balance improving your short-term chances with your long-term competitiveness. I think you have to ask whether you really need another front-line starter if it means trading four key pieces of a rapidly-thinning farm system. I think you have to care about including Logan Allen as the extra piece of a market-setting trade for a closer with declining peripherals. I think you have to get an A-ball player back from Milwaukee in a Thornburg trade.

Two of the philosophies that Theo Epstein lived by were: 1) "Resist the urge to try to build a superteam" and 2) "Focus on building a player development machine." Those philosophies are about laying a sustainable foundation for long-term competitiveness. You try to win 90 games every year and hope that, every so often, you get on a run and fly a flag. Yes, sometimes you trade some future value for present value, even at a high exchange rate. But you see long-term competitiveness as part of what you work on every day, whether that means "hoarding" prospects or trading for Jarrod Saltalamacchia at the deadline a year before you're going to need him as your starting C.

That's the approach I prefer, and for a long time that's what the Red Sox were doing, and I think it's how we became one of the game's strongest and most successful franchises over the last 13 years. The Red Sox under Dombrowski aren't doing that anymore. And that's why, even though I can't wait to watch Chris Sale pitch, I don't love what's happening here.
That first paragraph looks like a whole lot of upside to me, without much realism. We've seen the substantial downside of each of those guys too, and if you swap those into your list of ceilings, you're looking at a pretty scary picture. The fact is that very, very good rotation couldn't steal wins for a struggling offense in late September and the postseason this year.

I think something we haven't really seen is how Dombrowski trades away ML talent. I was definitely disappointed that he let Layne go for free, but I'm willing to chalk that up to deadline/roster space issues. For the first time in his tenure we're at a point where it's time to restock, so what he gets for the farm from dealing Buchholz/Hembree this winter is critical.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,174
What was the need here? We already had the reigning Cy Young Award winner, the runner-up for the previous year's Cy Young Award, an emerging starter we thought highly enough of to give up our one of the game's best pitching prospects, a young lefty who throws an effortless 95 and has shown flashes of brilliance, a guy who was an All-Star last year, and a guy who at times has been one of the best pitchers in the game. That's a very, very good rotation.

To me, a better way to describe Dombrowski would be: "He is dead-set on improving the team's chances of winning the World Series in the short term, regardless of the ramifications for the team's long-term competitiveness." Not that he is willing to pay a higher exchange rate to convert future value to present value -- he just isn't interested in what the exchange rate it at all. That's even what he said on MLB Network last night -- something like (paraphrasing), "In baseball, four years is a lifetime away, so you can't really worry about that."

That's a perfectly coherent philosophy, one many fans agree with. He's certainly executing it aggressively! If Kimbrel reverses his downturn, Price gets straightened out as his long contract continues, Pomeranz returns to the form he had for a while last year, and Sale stays healthy, you might even say he's executed it well. And you certainly can't say it's boring.

I just don't agree with the philosophy. Not because I love my binkies and really want Portland to win the Eastern League next year. But because I do think you can, and should, worry about four years from now. I think you have to balance improving your short-term chances with your long-term competitiveness. I think you have to ask whether you really need another front-line starter if it means trading four key pieces of a rapidly-thinning farm system. I think you have to care about including Logan Allen as the extra piece of a market-setting trade for a closer with declining peripherals. I think you have to get an A-ball player back from Milwaukee in a Thornburg trade.

Two of the philosophies that Theo Epstein lived by were: 1) "Resist the urge to try to build a superteam" and 2) "Focus on building a player development machine." Those philosophies are about laying a sustainable foundation for long-term competitiveness. You try to win 90 games every year and hope that, every so often, you get on a run and fly a flag. Yes, sometimes you trade some future value for present value, even at a high exchange rate. But you see long-term competitiveness as part of what you work on every day, whether that means "hoarding" prospects or trading for Jarrod Saltalamacchia at the deadline a year before you're going to need him as your starting C.

That's the approach I prefer, and for a long time that's what the Red Sox were doing, and I think it's how we became one of the game's strongest and most successful franchises over the last 13 years. The Red Sox under Dombrowski aren't doing that anymore. And that's why, even though I can't wait to watch Chris Sale pitch, I don't love what's happening here.
Meh, if Chris Sale helps us win a World Series (or possibly multiple as we have him 3 years), I'm not going to cry over what Moncada or Kopech could have given us 4 years from now.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,432
Saint Paul, MN
Pedey may hate leading off but I hated his constant DP's from the 2 hole.
He definitely did ground into a fair number of DP's from the 2 hole last year - one time every 26 PA's. But it seems more an anomaly than anything. Over his career he has only grounded into DP's slightly more often from the 2 hole compared to leading off.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Meh, if Chris Sale helps us win a World Series (or possibly multiple as we have him 3 years), I'm not going to cry over what Moncada or Kopech could have given us 4 years from now.
Yep. Having a never ending pipeline of young stud prospects is great in theory, but eventually your major league roster fills up and you need to find ways to turn the excess into value. That's basically where the Sox were coming into this winter. They had more prospects than they were going to be able to fit on the major league roster any time soon and they converted some (most) of them into one of the best starting pitchers in the world and a solid late inning reliever, two areas where the team had room to improve.

Maybe Dombrowski bet on the wrong players, but the approach shouldn't really be questioned. Now was the time to start cashing in chips.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,197
That first paragraph looks like a whole lot of upside to me, without much realism. We've seen the substantial downside of each of those guys too, and if you swap those into your list of ceilings, you're looking at a pretty scary picture. The fact is that very, very good rotation couldn't steal wins for a struggling offense in late September and the postseason this year.
Dombrowski himself referred to Sale as a "luxury" during the press conference, and confirmed that, if they hadn't traded for Sale, they wouldn't have made another move to bolster the rotation. You may disagree, but they clearly didn't think they were looking at a "pretty scary picture." They thought they were in good shape. And they made the trade anyway. That's what concerns me.
Meh, if Chris Sale helps us win a World Series (or possibly multiple as we have him 3 years), I'm not going to cry over what Moncada or Kopech could have given us 4 years from now.
Listen, I understand the sentiment, I really do. I just think that's a really bad way to run a baseball franchise. How much Chris Sale improves our chances of winning a World Series matters. How much losing Moncada/Kopech/Basabe/Diaz downgrades our ability to field a competitive team four years from now also matters. Refusing to consider the "exchange rate" in converting future value to present value is as silly as refusing to ever convert future value to present value at all.

Franchise-building isn't a dichotomy between Building For The Future and Going For It Now. It's a balance. Or, at least, it's supposed to be. But I don't see much evidence that Dombrowski agrees. Everything he's done indicates that he wants to maximize present value regardless of that balance.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
But they're probably more concerned with getting under the threshold than restocking the farm right now, don't you think? Buchholz seems like the clear man to trade, unless someone really blows you away with an offer on Pomeranz.

Kyle Lewis, exciting as he is, is still a lower ranked prospect than Espinoza, and he's in the middle of rehabbing a knee injury that could be catastrophic to his career in the outfield. That's a serious gamble to take for a proven starter with all star upside. I get that the Mariners' system is pretty thin and the optics of losing him would be bad for them, but I don't think a conversation about Pomeranz starts without him in the deal.
I think they are more focused on winning without adding significant payroll, and nothing is stopping them from moving both Pomeranz and Buchholz to shed some salary and make room for the new acquisitions. They really need to turn one of the lefties into something else. Maybe that's prospects (if Pomeranz goes) or maybe a reliever or another bat. But moving both still leaves them with five quality starters (Sale, Porcello, Price, Eduardo, Wright) plus some depth in Joe Kelly, Brian Johnson, Henry Owens and even Elias.

I'd probably prefer they keep Buchholz and be a little over the cap, but we'll have to wait and see how the front office is approaching the luxury tax.

But I don't see much evidence that Dombrowski agrees. Everything he's done indicates that he wants to maximize present value regardless of that balance.
I disagree. All of the moves he's traded significant prospects away in have been for players with multiple years of control. He's not focused on now so much as the window where the young core is still cheap. That's the next three seasons or so. Yes, the ability to feed more young superstars into the 2020 roster when Betts and rest get expensive took a massive hit. But I think it's silly to turn down an opportunity to go from playoff likely team to the team to beat in the AL for the period leading into that season just because we will no longer have those pieces in house 4 years early.

Plus, which prospects of the ones traded were really likely to be impact players who were just making their way into the roster in 2019 and 2020? Moncada wasn't sitting in the minors past midseason this year... maybe spring of 2018 at the latest. Manuel Margot wasn't gonna chill out in Pawtucket hoping for a chance to crack a loaded young outfield. Kopech might have been a great addition to the rotation when Price opted out, but he might flame out by then or be converted to the pen too. His risk profile is really high, so converting that to a whole ton of value over the next three seasons makes a ton of sense.

Dombrowski decided to field the most competitive team he could in the 3 or 4 years that Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, Benintendi, Swihart and Eduardo were still cheap. We could be looking at the best run of 3 or 4 years this team has had outside of 2003-2005 since the early 1900's. If that's not worth weakening the potential roster in 2020 or 2021, nothing is. And if you believe that the only viable way to run a major league franchise is to build through the farm and never kick the future down the road for immediate or short term value, well... I don't think you'd make a very good GM or president of baseball ops.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,176
Twin Cities
...
Franchise-building isn't a dichotomy between Building For The Future and Going For It Now. It's a balance. Or, at least, it's supposed to be. But I don't see much evidence that Dombrowski agrees. Everything he's done indicates that he wants to maximize present value regardless of that balance.
I agree with the principle you state but not your conclusion. If we had traded Espinoza for a 3 month rental, or gave up Moncada for one season of "present value," I'd agree. But DD has traded for 2.5 years of relatively cheap Pomeranz, 3 years of relatively cheap Thornburg, 3 years of very cheap Sale, and 3 years of current-but-soon-to-be-below market value Kimbrel. How is that not getting cost-effective present AND future value? Seems to be striking a pretty good balance to me, even if he IS giving up more distant future value.

The other point that has been made but keeps somehow getting lost is that DD HAS made apparent decisions to keep many of his young prospects and MLBers. He didn't deal any of the Bs, or even one of his catchers. He's not cashing in all of his young chips for proven and more expensive 30 year olds. There's balance there as well.

Seems to me that you just want the scale to be tipped more toward future prospect value. That's fine, but you do at least need to acknowledge that some of those good prospects, as Snod notes, were going to be blocked (Margot in particular). And also that part of the value being balanced is the payroll impact that obtaining present help has. Costs more in talent to get a cheap guy like Sale than an expensive guy like Verlander. And while clearly willing to spend to contend, the Sox appear to have some legit payroll limits.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
Dombrowski decided to field the most competitive team he could in the 3 or 4 years that Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, Benintendi, Swihart and Eduardo were still cheap. We could be looking at the best run of 3 or 4 years this team has had outside of 2003-2005 since the early 1900's. If that's not worth weakening the potential roster in 2020 or 2021, nothing is. And if you believe that the only viable way to run a major league franchise is to build through the farm and never kick the future down the road for immediate or short term value, well... I don't think you'd make a very good GM or president of baseball ops.
Exactly.

You can't just gloss over the window factor in play here in the attempt to essentially label DD as "shortsighted". One that he himself specifically made it a point in that MLB network interview to both explain and point out as factoring heavily into why that trade gets made.
 

rotundlio

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2014
323
I don't love what's happening here.
Brian Cashman just compared us to the Golden State Warriors, a basketball team. Maybe he was being trite, but what's happening here is a gorram Christmas miracle makes me want to help the homeless. If I'd suggested earlier this year that Moncada, Kopech, and the guy whose middle name you must specify could corral us Christopher Allen Sale I'd have been roundly lauded for my genius. Sale has thrown 17,271 pitches at the Major League level without experiencing worse than day-to-day arm soreness, and he gets us under the luxury tax.

He hated his past team. Guarantee he'd rate them poorly. They played miserable defense and un-framed more pitches than anyone. They told him to stop striking out so many, go deeper, carry us. Hand me those scissors. Something, something, Drake LaRoche?! Here he gets Brian Bannister, Lord willing, and a much-needed … change of laundry.

In addition to three years at near poverty-level payment, if we win a few World Series I would assume we could succeed given first crack at extending him, eh? About 4/$70 you think would do it? Whoever heard of a durable lefty getting better with age in this sport? Look at Price's peripherals! (Sale's agent is BB Abbott, which is interesting for its double letters and alphabetic extremity.) Sale is likely a better long-term investment than Kopech, till he eats his way out of playing shape.

Our two previous "#1" prospects to be dealt were Casey Kelly and Andy Marté. Past "#1 overall" prospects include Delmon Young, Wieters, Alex Gordon, Jurickson Profar, Buxton, (researching) Jay Bruce, Jason Heyward the "J-Hey Kid," Daisuke Matsuzaka, this Mike Trout character.… We can be certain Moncada's pecs will at least enjoy a Major League playing career. Beyond that, I will take the anomalous gain in strikeout differential and world-defying championship aspiration. I am particularly enamored with the locking up of a Hall of Fame-caliber lefty aspect. He will make an interesting trade chip down the road, that is for certain.

FanGraphs posted a long-form prospect hump if you're wanting an obit. I can't think how this is a "monster" return when two of the players are allotted three of fifteen paragraphs, and the author is dismissive of them, but, I am no editor.

Kopech will probably throw four wide ones as he packs to leave. That is a lot of effort and a great many pitches from a guy who lacks development and breaks our injury projection scale. I put his median output somewhere around Carlos Marmol with more punches thrown, but I certainly wish he and his fastball and his girlfriend best tidings. Groome and Devers are still high value pieces on both sides of the baseball.

The Red Sox should send a letter to old Ms. Basabe. (Luisa Alexandra?) They've still got their birthday. Send one to Ortiz, as well. Your birthday is September 1, 2017, old man.

Look how happy he is. I'm imagining him benching three times the weight of those other dudes. Then winning the World Series.
 
Last edited:

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
But they're probably more concerned with getting under the threshold than restocking the farm right now, don't you think? Buchholz seems like the clear man to trade, unless someone really blows you away with an offer on Pomeranz.

Kyle Lewis, exciting as he is, is still a lower ranked prospect than Espinoza, and he's in the middle of rehabbing a knee injury that could be catastrophic to his career in the outfield. That's a serious gamble to take for a proven starter with all star upside. I get that the Mariners' system is pretty thin and the optics of losing him would be bad for them, but I don't think a conversation about Pomeranz starts without him in the deal.
Having trouble seeing Lewis as a realistic return for Pomeranz. Pomeranz's value was significantly higher last July, so the return for him would be significantly less valuable than Espinoza--Pomeranz had some injury issues of his own down the stretch, and an additional half-season left on his rookie deal in which he was making $1.4M/year, a figure that will go up for 2017. Espinoza's value, meanwhile, has gone up--he's a half-season closer to the majors than he was in July, and he was able to sustain his established level of excellent performance in his new organization.

Using this state-of-the-art prospect valuation tool, taking Pomeranz's estimated 2017 salary from here, and doing some quick-and-dirty FG-style calculations with estimated performance (according to ZIPS and Steamer, but upping his estimated WAR from 2.3 to 2.5 because I anticipate he'd be a full-time SP for whatever organization would be acquiring him) and salaries, I think Pomeranz is worth about $16M in surplus value for next year. This would peg his value around that of a pitcher in the 60s of a top-100 list, or a hitter a little after #75--so maybe, sticking with the Mariners, the Red Sox get Tyler O'Neill by including a lesser prospect of their own, they get multiple lower-rated guys, or they get someone ranked a bit lower in another organization.

Edit: Didn't account for Pomeranz being under contract in 2018 as well, my mistake. Would still say that Lewis is too rich, but Pomeranz's 2018 surplus value gets you into territory where Tyler O'Neill, straight up, could be realistic.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2, 2016
632
Having trouble seeing Lewis as a realistic return for Pomeranz. Pomeranz's value was significantly higher last July, so the return for him would be significantly less valuable than Espinoza--Pomeranz had some injury issues of his own down the stretch, and an additional half-season left on his rookie deal in which he was making $1.4M/year, a figure that will go up for 2017. Espinoza's value, meanwhile, has gone up--he's a half-season closer to the majors than he was in July, and he was able to sustain his established level of excellent performance in his new organization.

Using this state-of-the-art prospect valuation tool, taking Pomeranz's estimated 2017 salary from here, and doing some quick-and-dirty FG-style calculations with estimated performance (according to ZIPS and Steamer, but upping his estimated WAR from 2.3 to 2.5 because I anticipate he'd be a full-time SP for whatever organization would be acquiring him) and salaries, I think Pomeranz is worth about $16M in surplus value for next year. This would peg his value around that of a pitcher in the 60s of a top-100 list, or a hitter a little after #75--so maybe, sticking with the Mariners, the Red Sox get Tyler O'Neill by including a lesser prospect of their own, they get multiple lower-rated guys, or they get someone ranked a bit lower in another organization.

Edit: Didn't account for Pomeranz being under contract in 2018 as well, my mistake. Would still say that Lewis is too rich, but Pomeranz's 2018 surplus value gets you into territory where Tyler O'Neill, straight up, could be realistic.
I'm having trouble seeing us extract something remotely close to Pomeranz's value. He did not pitch great after the trade, had arm soreness, and of course the whole deal with the Padres concealing medical records on him. If we cannot get a highly rated prospect for him, we need to keep him hopefully enjoy at least some of the cheap team control we have over the next two years.
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
I'm having trouble seeing us extract something remotely close to Pomeranz's value. He did not pitch great after the trade, had arm soreness, and of course the whole deal with the Padres concealing medical records on him. If we cannot get a highly rated prospect for him, we need to keep him hopefully enjoy at least some of the cheap team control we have over the next two years.
On the other hand, Pomeranz has no major injury issues and didn't exactly fall off a cliff down the stretch--I think any organization would recognize that he may have run into some bad luck with HRs, and generally was able to carry his excellent K/BB from the NL West over to the AL East. Given how terrible this year's free agent crop is, where you have Rich Hill (8 years older than Pomeranz, checkered injury history including issues with blisters last year) getting 3/48, I have to think that if Pomeranz were suddenly a free agent he would command much, much more than the (non-guaranteed) $11M or so he'll be owed over the next two years. Sure, his trade value could go up, but I tend to think it's pretty damn high already. Perhaps there are more starters on the trade market I'm not thinking of, but he's certainly way more appetizing than Scott Kazmir or Brandon McCarthy, who are both significantly older, more expensive, coming off worse seasons, and have much more scary injury histories.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Franchise-building isn't a dichotomy between Building For The Future and Going For It Now. It's a balance. Or, at least, it's supposed to be. But I don't see much evidence that Dombrowski agrees. Everything he's done indicates that he wants to maximize present value regardless of that balance.
Is it Dombrowski who disagrees, or is it John Henry who disagrees? I would love Henry to be owner for life, and also for him to unselfishly continue to have a very low discount rate for winning now vs. winning in the future even as his actuarial probability of actually being around to witness that winning decreases, but he's not obligated to do so. It is entirely possible that John Henry only plans on owning the Red Sox for a few more years, and wants to win as many world series during that finite time as he can. In furtherance of that goal, he hired an experienced GM to come in and create the strongest team possible within a 3-5 year window in which the Red Sox are perennial favorites to win the AL East and hence, the World Series. That may be overinterpreting, but every move Dombrowski has made has been consistent with building a team for 2017-2019, with comparably little attention paid to what happens after that.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
7,480
Springfield, VA
In some ways Dombrowski is the perfect GM for the 2016-2019 window. This is a situation we don't see very often, but when you have an opportunity to be in title contention for four straight years, those discount rates climb through the roof. Maximize your chances now when the team is at its peak. We may suffer through some painful rebuilding years in the 2020-2022 range, but if you get at least one ring out of it (with not-insignificant chance for more than one), it's worth it.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
7,480
Springfield, VA
It was the same way with the Celtics 2007-2010. If you have a chance to mortgage your future to field a team with Garnett, Pierce, and Ray Allen in their primes, you gotta go for it. They were contention for three straight years, got one ring and was damn close to a second. Yeah, it cost them a lot in the following years, but it was totally worth it.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
But does this Sox team without Ortiz have enough to knock off the Cubs? I'm not so sure.
 

Bowlerman9

bitchslapped by Keith Law
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 1, 2003
5,211
But does this Sox team without Ortiz have enough to knock off the Cubs? I'm not so sure.
Aren't you better off NOT having your best player be a DH when 4/7ths (maybe 3/7th's) of the time he will get, at most, 1 AB? I'll take my chances against anyone with Sale, Price, and Porcello. DH be damned.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
But does this Sox team without Ortiz have enough to knock off the Cubs? I'm not so sure.
The chances that the Cubs will even be in the World Series again next year are not good. Only 12 of the past 50 WS winners have returned the following year. So that's really not the right frame to use. The Sox should focus on building a team that can make, and compete in, the postseason. Who they'll need to "knock off" in order to advance from that point, we have no idea right now, and neither do they.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,263
Maine
Is there any point in which EE's market craters to the point where we have to jump in and take advantage?
Can't see it at this point. No matter what his cost is in dollars, he's still coming with the penalty of a first round pick (not to mention any luxury tax implications). Is losing the pick and paying penalties worth whatever upgrade he might represent over the projected rotation through the 1B/DH spots? I'm guessing no.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
The chances that the Cubs will even be in the World Series again next year are not good. Only 12 of the past 50 WS winners have returned the following year. So that's really not the right frame to use. The Sox should focus on building a team that can make, and compete in, the postseason. Who they'll need to "knock off" in order to advance from that point, we have no idea right now, and neither do they.
The Cubs are different. The core is locked up for years and team has a ton of young talent. The Cubs aren't going away and have a really good chance of getting back in my opinion. I would actually liken that juggernaut to what the Yankees were able to do back in the 90s. Some differences aside of course.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
The Cubs are different. The core is locked up for years and team has a ton of young talent. The Cubs aren't going away and have a really good chance of getting back in my opinion. I would actually liken that juggernaut to what the Yankees were able to do back in the 90s. Some differences aside of course.
The Red Sox brought back virtually the same team in 2005 and didn't get back. They did the same thing in the 2008 season, got really close but fell short. Hell, they brought back most of the 2013 WS winner and didn't make the playoffs.

I love the Cubs and they have as good a shot as anyone in baseball of getting to the World Series in 2017, but they still don't have a good chance to get there. That's just the nature of a head to head playoff system.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,176
Twin Cities
...
I love the Cubs and they have as good a shot as anyone in baseball of getting to the World Series in 2017, but they still don't have a good chance to get there. That's just the nature of a head to head playoff system.
Agreed. Especially with the injuries to their starting pitchers this post-season, there was no way Cleveland was going to beat Boston in the first round. Until they did. Stuff happens.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
The Cubs are different. The core is locked up for years and team has a ton of young talent. The Cubs aren't going away and have a really good chance of getting back in my opinion. I would actually liken that juggernaut to what the Yankees were able to do back in the 90s. Some differences aside of course.
It's a good thing you're putting the differences aside, because they're huge. The 1999 Yankees (the first Yankee WS winner to repeat in a generation) had only three players in their starting lineup under 30, and one of them was the immortal Ricky Ledee. The 2000 three-peat team was basically the same group, a year older.

But more to the point, that 2000 Yankee team made it all the way despite winning only 87 games and barely sneaking through an ALDS round in which they got outscored 23-19.

Baseball is not like other sports. You can't build an automatic or even near-automatic winner. No matter how much better you are talent-wise than other clubs, you can (and often do) lose a playoff series. Often in the first round, where in other sports the real juggernauts are generally first-round-proof.

You want to guess how many times, in the 22 seasons since the three-stage playoff format was introduced in 1995, the team with the best W/L record in baseball made it to the World Series? 9. If you ask the same question about pythag, the answer is 7. If you use SRS, 8.

How many times out of those 22 seasons have neither of the two teams in the WS been the best in baseball by any of those three measures? 12. And in how many seasons has a team ranked best in baseball by at least one of those measures been knocked out in the LDS or even failed to make the playoffs entirely? 13. And the teams that has happened to have included plenty of 100-game winners: the 1999 Diamondbacks, 2002 Yankees, 2003 Braves, 2008 Angels, 2011 Phillies, and 2015 Cardinals.

In short, even the best team in baseball is more likely to be knocked out in the first round, or never get there in the first place, than to make the World Series. That's how hard, and how close to random, the playoffs are.

So even if the Cubs are as good next year as they were this year--and young core or no young core, that's asking a lot--it's a mistake to anoint them pre-emptively for a WS berth. Baseball just doesn't work that way.
 
Last edited:

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,193
Rogers Park
Also, the Nats and Dodgers look likely to be comparably talented teams, and it's easy to imagine things going right for the Mets, Giants, or even the Cardinals. The NL has some real dogs right now, but there are more good teams than just the Cubs.

Still, the contrast is pretty striking with the AL, where there are nine or maybe even ten teams (how do you feel about Detroit?) that wouldn't be surprises if they landed at least the second wildcard.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
Is there any point in which EE's market craters to the point where we have to jump in and take advantage?
I don't doubt that in a perfect world DD would like to walk out of this winter replacing Ortiz's bat with a much better one then Mitch Moreland. Which is why even though neither are getting traded for lottery ticket depth (imo), I'm not totally discounting the possibility he'd move one of Edro/Pom instead of Buchholz in the starting pitching debate if the end result gave him just that.

How he would/could go about doing that in a trade that actually makes sense given our current roster makeup isn't really perfect world stuff though. EE's salary and positional fit certainly isn't fitting in there anymore.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
44,327
deep inside Guido territory

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
Farrell must have already forgotten that we went out and signed Mitch Moreland this winter.

Otherwise what, are they are still looking for a slugging RHH platoon option at 1B with Hanley assuming full time DH status?
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
The Red Sox will have to replace retired slugger David Ortiz, and Farrell said he “wouldn’t be surprised if we sign a middle-of-the-order bat.”

However, a team that signs a specific type of free agent has to give up a first-round draft pick as compensation, and Farrell said giving up a first-round pick to sign a free agent to a one-year deal “isn’t going to happen.”

http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/18/sports/red-sox-manager-excited-about-upcoming-season-thanks-to-trades/
What's the price point where losing the 1rst round pick for an entirely one dimensional Trumbo would make sense for Sox ?
1) League has 1 WAR at about 8 mill per year
2) We know they want to be under the lux tax which they are by 10ish mill factoring in in season money freedom.

I'd bet Trumbo is fishing for 3/30 with option at this point. I doubt the Sox would entertain the idea without getting the APY at 8 or 9 maybe even lower.

I'd probably look more at Valbuena but it's a mildly interesting idea IF he can be had at 8/9m over 3 .
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
Beyond the where would he even get full time starts factor, I don't think Trumbo is the more likely option there over a Chris Carter.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
3,962
It's a stretch to call Moreland a middle of the order bat. His mean career batting order position is 6.6, and he has batted in the 7-9 slots more often than the 4-6 slots.
I think the point is more that there is nowhere to fit a hypothetical "middle of the order bat" that The Jaw might be referring to
now that Moreland is on the roster/in the lineup.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
It's a stretch to call Moreland a middle of the order bat. His mean career batting order position is 6.6, and he has batted in the 7-9 slots more often than the 4-6 slots.
I wasn't claiming he was. I simply pointing out that the one signing that didn't get any mention in that article also happens to be the most likely place we could actually find a spot for this supposed signing.