A lot of people were saying the same thing a year ago about the Rick Porcello trade.Bottom line: The Red Sox did not get what they paid for.
A lot of people were saying the same thing a year ago about the Rick Porcello trade.Bottom line: The Red Sox did not get what they paid for.
True, but at least there weren't the lingering medical questions hidden by the other team in the background.A lot of people were saying the same thing a year ago about the Rick Porcello trade.
Right. I'm honestly relieved that we'll have Pomeranz for next season. If not, we'd likely be giving Rich Hill a three year deal or trading Benintendi for Teheran. There's nothing out there.A lot of people were saying the same thing a year ago about the Rick Porcello trade.
Under two more years of control at likely nothing numbers...Right. I'm honestly relieved that we'll have Pomeranz for next season. If not, we'd likely be giving Rich Hill a three year deal or trading Benintendi for Teheran. There's nothing out there.
But where do you assign the blame? Up until now, Pomeranz has made 13 starts for the Sox and in that time had one start pushed back a couple of days. In those 13 starts he's given up 2 or less earned runs 8 times, 3 once, 4 once and 5 three times. At this point how do you determine that THIS injury isn't new? Or to what point might it be the Sox fault if they kept pitching him after the disclosure of the private medical chart? I get what you're saying but it's not like he pitched three or four games and his arm fell off.
Bottom line: The Red Sox did not get what they paid for. Determining how much of that is because the Padres cheated the system and how much is because Dombrowski took a bad risk relies on information we don't have.
Bingo. Even if the info the Padres hid was related to Pomeranz' elbow or forearm, the fact that he made 13 starts for the Red Sox in seeming good health before it flared up makes putting blame on the Padres dicey at best. Every pitcher's arm is a ticking time bomb no matter what the medicals say at the time he's acquired.I get what you're saying but it's not like he pitched three or four games and his arm fell off.
If "even at the time people worried," doesn't that mean that they got exactly what they paid for? You might disagree with the trade but you can't possibly be saying that the Sox got hoodwinked somehow. If we all knew about his potential innings limitations, and there is no evidence that his current struggles are anything more than that, then I don't buy into the conspiracy stuff.Sure, but they paid a premium to get a guy who would be a) good enough to displace our 4th-best starter as part of our playoff rotation and b) on a long-enough contract to plan on him being part of the rotation beyond 2016. And even at the time, people worried aloud that Pomeranz's innings and injury history, respectively, made each of those a risky proposition. I can't imagine that knowing he was being treated for elbow pain wouldn't have exacerbated those concerns and made paying the premium an even worse idea.
Bottom line: The Red Sox did not get what they paid for. Determining how much of that is because the Padres cheated the system and how much is because Dombrowski took a bad risk relies on information we don't have.
You know, it's quite possible the Paddes feel similarly about Espinoza, who didn't exactly resemble the future Cy Young Award winner they were promised.Bottom line: The Red Sox did not get what they paid for. Determining how much of that is because the Padres cheated the system and how much is because Dombrowski took a bad risk relies on information we don't have.
Espinoza was a top 20 prospect. That is not a lottery ticket in terms of prospects.You know, it's quite possible the Paddes feel similarly about Espinoza, who didn't exactly resemble the future Cy Young Award winner they were promised.
The Red Sox gave up a lottery ticket for an All Star with 2 years of control left.
They did ok.
Espinoza wasn't setting Greenville on fire before he was traded. I think his time with the Padres was more or less the same.You know, it's quite possible the Paddes feel similarly about Espinoza, who didn't exactly resemble the future Cy Young Award winner they were promised.
The Red Sox gave up a lottery ticket for an All Star with 2 years of control left.
They did ok.
There might be further punishment for Preller -- one month's unpaid vacation seems like encouragement for some other GM to repeat the deception -- but the penalty will be specific to the Padres, and will not directly benefit the Red Sox.The case is closed, the deal will not be voided and the Sox will get nothing else from the Padres.
He wasn't as good as the Sox hoped he would be but he did help the Sox this year and he will be around two more years.
Wait, isn't the proof the deal?Espinoza wasn't setting Greenville on fire before he was traded. I think his time with the Padres was more or less the same.
I have a sneaky suspicion the Dombroski was less high on Espinoza than most prospect mavens and decided to sell high. No proof of course.
Can we rescind it in mid-November?“@brianmacp: Manfred: The Red Sox were offered the opportunity to rescind the Pomeranz-Espinoza trade, but they declined.”
There was nothing questionable about the trade, even if you assume Espinoza is guaranteed to be an above average major league starter.Can we rescind it in mid-November?
Kidding of course – and I guess I don't blame DD for declining. But, Pomeranz's inconsistency and late arm discomfort combined with Preller's shady practices really made a questionable* trade worse.
* TINSTAAPP
Yes, thus the asterisk. I suppose "Controversial*" would've been better. I didn't love the deal it when it was announced, only because I was in camp "Espinoza is the best Red Sox pitching prospect in the last 20+ years." After that shock went away, I went into the "That's the price you have to pay" camp.There was nothing questionable about the trade, even if you assume Espinoza is guaranteed to be an above average major league starter.
They were 6-7 in games he started. They've been 8-8 in games Owens has started. I don't really think Pomeranz is more than a win or two better than Owens over a two month stretch on his best day. And that is with knowing that Pomeranz was heading into uncharted territory innings-wise.Anyone who says they should have rescinded the trade just remember that means Henry Owens is starting those pivotal games in August and September instead of Pomeranz
I'd say they likely would've eaten one of those bigger deals, like a Nolasco.Anyone who says they should have rescinded the trade just remember that means Henry Owens is starting those pivotal games in August and September instead of Pomeranz
I'd rather dive into the Henderson Alvarez, Mike Minor, Kris Medlen pool.Right. I'm honestly relieved that we'll have Pomeranz for next season. If not, we'd likely be giving Rich Hill a three year deal or trading Benintendi for Teheran. There's nothing out there.
From Porcello and Price to Owens and Johnson, we have eight options, four to six of whom are good, depending on how you feel about Buchholz and Wright. We just need to add one or two O'Sullivan type veterans to fill out the Pawtucket rotation.
Wow. I hope that doesn't come back to bite the Sox. I understand other options had passed, but I really hope Pomeranz works out, because they gave up a ton for an injured pitcher.“@brianmacp: Manfred: The Red Sox were offered the opportunity to rescind the Pomeranz-Espinoza trade, but they declined.”
Even with this revelation that they could have rescinded the deal, there is still zero indication that they received an injured pitcher. ZERO. They were misinformed about something, but we do not know that it was an injury. That he is hurt now is irrelevant to the deal.Wow. I hope that doesn't come back to bite the Sox. I understand other options had passed, but I really hope Pomeranz works out, because they gave up a ton for an injured pitcher.
You basically described the difference between an average player and a replacement-level one.They were 6-7 in games he started. They've been 8-8 in games Owens has started. I don't really think Pomeranz is more than a win or two better than Owens over a two month stretch on his best day. And that is with knowing that Pomeranz was heading into uncharted territory innings-wise.
While I don't disagree with you, these things aren't always cut and dried. We've seen underperforming pitchers turn out to have serious injury after-the-fact. Lackey and Clement spring to mind as far as Sox starters go.Even with this revelation that they could have rescinded the deal, there is still zero indication that they received an injured pitcher. ZERO. They were misinformed about something, but we do not know that it was an injury. That he is hurt now is irrelevant to the deal.
I wouldn't be surprised if he has some lingering damage somewhere in his body...pretty much ever pitcher does to some degree. But has Pomeranz significantly underperformed since arriving? Yes, he's not been quite as good as he was in San Diego, but did we really expect him to maintain that same sub-3 ERA moving to the AL East?While I don't disagree with you, these things aren't always cut and dried. We've seen underperforming pitchers turn out to have serious injury after-the-fact. Lackey and Clement spring to mind as far as Sox starters go.
Fair point, but if you read Manfred's comments, he had no interest in taking a role the way the Cubs/Sox almost did over the Cub's embarrassingly classless and zero character way they took on the Theo compensation.I wouldn't be surprised if he has some lingering damage somewhere in his body...pretty much ever pitcher does to some degree. But has Pomeranz significantly underperformed since arriving? Yes, he's not been quite as good as he was in San Diego, but did we really expect him to maintain that same sub-3 ERA moving to the AL East?
Clement is a good example though. He was signed, presumably with a clean bill of health (for a 30 year old pitcher, anyway), and pitched well for a good stretch before getting worse until it was discovered his shoulder was shredded beyond repair. His injury probably dated back to before he was signed, but it went undetected. Should the Red Sox have expected it to have been in any medical records from his Cubs days? Could they have picked it up in a physical? Same questions that can be asked of Pomeranz and the Padres, no?
I guess my point isn't that Pomeranz came to the Red Sox 100% healthy (because no one does), it's that we have been given zero reason to believe he's been pitching with a Lackey/Clement-level injury on the verge of ending his season/career. I guess I have a bit of faith that if the undisclosed information the Padres withheld was that significant, MLB wouldn't have just suspended Preller with no compensation for the Red Sox. Or at the very least, the book wouldn't be closed on the case leaving open the chance to undo or make good during the off-season.
If Pomeranz blows out his elbow or shoulder in the next couple weeks or next season or 2-3 years down the line, how would it be any different from Clement, Lackey, Matsuzaka or any other pitcher the Sox have given up assets to acquire (cash or prospects/players) that got hurt? What's the point at which it's just a "shit happens" injury and not the fault of the shady Padres GM?
And in those starts they performed as follows:They were 6-7 in games he started. They've been 8-8 in games Owens has started. I don't really think Pomeranz is more than a win or two better than Owens over a two month stretch on his best day. And that is with knowing that Pomeranz was heading into uncharted territory innings-wise.
And then there was the Sauersuck *fleecing*.While I don't disagree with you, these things aren't always cut and dried. We've seen underperforming pitchers turn out to have serious injury after-the-fact. Lackey and Clement spring to mind as far as Sox starters go.
Clement was a FA signing, not a trade. Do teams exchange medical records of departing FAs? Were the Cubs keeping "two sets of books" on their players, as I understand the Padres were?Clement is a good example though. He was signed, presumably with a clean bill of health (for a 30 year old pitcher, anyway), and pitched well for a good stretch before getting worse until it was discovered his shoulder was shredded beyond repair. His injury probably dated back to before he was signed, but it went undetected. Should the Red Sox have expected it to have been in any medical records from his Cubs days? Could they have picked it up in a physical? Same questions that can be asked of Pomeranz and the Padres, no?
The Man:Was it ever explained as to why rescinding the trade was the only option? Since the Red Sox clearly wanted Pomeranz, why couldn't they rework it for lesser value?
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/clubhouse_insider/2016/10/commissioner_rob_manfred_red_sox_had_chance_to_nix_pomeranz"Well there’s certainly consideration of that (giving the Red Sox compensation)," Manfred said Sunday at Fenway Park. "I think that it’s important to understand. That for a very, very long time, there has been a rule in baseball that if something happens in terms of lack of complete information or disclosure with respect to the trade that the remedy is to rescind the trade. And you saw that baseball rule operate. Unfortunately again with the Padres and again with their trade with the Marlins. We offered early on the opportunity to seek rescission in the trade and for good baseball reasons, the biggest one being we were past the trading deadline, they elected not to seek rescission.
Well I raised this option earlier and was told it was because "the Padres only did the trade because they wanted Anderson Espinoza" which, yeah, still makes no sense.Was it ever explained as to why rescinding the trade was the only option? Since the Red Sox clearly wanted Pomeranz, why couldn't they rework it for lesser value?
Unless MLB was going to force players on to the Padres, the reason why reworking the trade is not feasible is because the Padres don't have any incentive to agree to any lesser package. I mean the Padres could say something like, "OK, we'll settle for Moncada and Benintendi because we think Espinoza is better than the two of them combined" and then MLB is in the position of either trying to figure out what Espinoza and comparable prospects are worth or the discussions don't go anywhere.Well I raised this option earlier and was told it was because "the Padres only did the trade because they wanted Anderson Espinoza" which, yeah, still makes no sense.
It is true what was being hidden may not have been terribly impactful but then, the negotiated deal was predicated on some level by deception. Forcing SDP to uphold the trade but submit to a moderator's take on different, lesser compensation for Pomeranz struck me as fair.
Wait... what? They don't need incentive, it's a punishment. They're ordered to the moderator with Boston to rework it. No one would accept Moncada/ AB with a straight face? What are you even talking about?Unless MLB was going to force players on to the Padres, the reason why reworking the trade is not feasible is because the Padres don't have any incentive to agree to any lesser package. I mean the Padres could say something like, "OK, we'll settle for Moncada and Benintendi because we think Espinoza is better than the two of them combined" and then MLB is in the position of either trying to figure out what Espinoza and comparable prospects are worth or the discussions don't go anywhere.
I agree that the concept isn't that tough but I don't think I'm the one that isn't getting it.Wait... what? They don't need incentive, it's a punishment. They're ordered to the moderator with Boston to rework it. No one would accept Moncada/ AB with a straight face? What are you even talking about?
Not sure why this is so tough a concept.
And in 2017 as well.Anyone who says they should have rescinded the trade just remember that means Henry Owens is starting those pivotal games in August and September instead of Pomeranz
Exactly. THEY did something wrong, ergo THEY should be punished, what they want be damned. I don't get why MLB seems to reluctant to enforce this concept.Wait... what? They don't need incentive, it's a punishment. They're ordered to the moderator with Boston to rework it. No one would accept Moncada/ AB with a straight face? What are you even talking about?
Not sure why this is so tough a concept.
Agreed. I can't imagine how hard it would be for MLB to evaluate prospects for other teams.Probably because of its arbitrary nature. MLB picking players to surrender based on rankings is not a good position for the league to be in. Honestly, the only real remedy short of rescinding the trade would have been a draft pick. As noted upthread, it's easily valued, damaging and a strong disincentive for bad behavior.
I've got just the guyA reasonable plan to me would have been to identify someone to mediate who had prior front office or scouting experience and can properly assign value to players.Both teams would have been instructed to identify 3 prospects that would be used to "trade" for Espinoza. The central idea would be that they should be lesser prospects than him. Each team could strike one player from the other list. They would then present to the mediator why they feel the players they identified would be appropriate compensation (legitimate, yet lesser prospect). If they each had the same player on their lists it would default to that player. You would want to make the process so the Padres don't go after someone like Kopech and the Sox don't offer some rookie league late rounder. It's not perfect, but it's the best scenario I can think of.