Gone but not forgotten - Dombrowski's Dealings.

RG33 · May 30, 2017

Outside of Kopech and Moncada, who we knew were elite and got us Sale, is there really much there that we will miss? I mean, Allen and Margot seem to be the only real prospects excelling/playing, and Margot is probably a stretch to think he would surpass any of Betts/Bene/Bradley at any point in the next 5 years. I suppose a lot in retrospect will depend on what Espinoza does -- but as was said at the time of the trade, he is a teenage pitcher and it is a total crapshoot regardless of "upside".

I remain completely fine with each and every one of these deals.

Cesar Crespo · May 30, 2017

Probably worth noting Tobias was traded "for" and not traded "away." And is he really the only prospect DD has traded for in his time here?

DJnVa · May 30, 2017

Yeah, if you're a masochist I'm not seeing much there to get you going.

E5 Yaz · May 30, 2017

DrewDawg said:
Yeah, if you're a masochist I'm not seeing much there to get you going.

Which actually is a selling point for this thread. A reminder that those "losses" haven't come back to bite them yet.

LogansDad · May 30, 2017

I feel like out of all those trades Kopech is most likely to be "the one that got away"... but he made it so that we get to watch Chris Sale in a Red Sox uniform, so I'm okay with that.

Thanks for compiling this list, grim.

mt8thsw9th · May 30, 2017

grimshaw said:
Javier Guerra - Repeating High A as a 21 year old SS but struggling with a .264/.358/.622.

In what world would a .980 OPS be considered struggling?

jon abbey · May 30, 2017

grimshaw said:
Victor Diaz - 23 year old pitcher and hurt in high A. Struggled in his 3 appearances.

Not sure what you're looking at, but he came back for his first appearances of the season last week and was dominant, 3 perfect innings with 6 Ks and named mlb.com's relief pitcher prospect of the week:

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/233095374/prospect-team-of-week-led-by-brendan-rodgers/?topicid=151437456

http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?player_id=661413#/career/R/pitching/2017/ALL

kenneycb · May 30, 2017

mt8thsw9th said:
In what world would a .980 OPS be considered struggling?

I think it's OBP/SLG/OPS, which has been popping up more frequently for some reason I don't understand because I have the cognitive ability to add two numbers together.

4 6 3 DP · May 30, 2017

RGREELEY33 said:
Outside of Kopech and Moncada, who we knew were elite and got us Sale, is there really much there that we will miss? I mean, Allen and Margot seem to be the only real prospects excelling/playing, and Margot is probably a stretch to think he would surpass any of Betts/Bene/Bradley at any point in the next 5 years. I suppose a lot in retrospect will depend on what Espinoza does -- but as was said at the time of the trade, he is a teenage pitcher and it is a total crapshoot regardless of "upside".

I remain completely fine with each and every one of these deals.

The Pomeranz deal is was and always will be an abomination. AE as a prospect had more value than a 5th starter having a career two months. Absolute garbage deal.

Bigpupp · May 30, 2017

grimshaw said:
Moved in the Carson Smith deal (Miley was included and Elias came back)
Jonathan Aro - Hasn't pitched since June of last season. Presumably out of baseball.

Aro was suspended 50 games in April.

Smiling Joe Hesketh · May 30, 2017

4 6 3 DP said:
The Pomeranz deal is was and always will be an abomination. AE as a prospect had more value than a 5th starter having a career two months. Absolute garbage deal.

AE has not pitched since last season, didn't pitch well before that one he got into the SD system, and currently has a sore elbow. Looking back is of course far different from projecting players, but solely from results it seems to me that so far the Sox have benefited from the deal.

AE is of course only 19, so things could turn for him, but his path upwards has gone very, very sideways over the last year. 19 year old piutchers can get untracked in a myriad of ways. Pedro, this guy ain't (Pedro had 177 IP with a 2.28 ERA over three levels in his age 19 season).

mt8thsw9th · May 30, 2017

Espinoza's FIP was around 3.00 as an 18 year old in A ball. That's pitching very, very well when considering his age. I don't see any Pedro comparisons outside of frame, and no one is Pedro nor will be.

The basic point I think most people have is that a back of the rotation guy is an awful thing to cash in a blue chip on, not that Dombrowski chose to trade him. There seems to be no gray area for a lot of people on this as well, as I don't think I have seen any backers of the trade either concede that the price was a bit high, or they just outright already consider Espinoza a bust due to elbow soreness. Regardless of his future value, Pomeranz still needs to provide some value in his time with the Red Sox to have it as a real win.

Detts · May 30, 2017

He also has the freakishly long Pedro fingers.

joe dokes · May 30, 2017

mt8thsw9th said:
Espinoza's FIP was around 3.00 as an 18 year old in A ball. That's pitching very, very well when considering his age. I don't see any Pedro comparisons outside of frame, and no one is Pedro nor will be.

The basic point I think most people have is that a back of the rotation guy is an awful thing to cash in a blue chip on, not that Dombrowski chose to trade him. There seems to be no gray area for a lot of people on this as well, as I don't think I have seen any backers of the trade either concede that the price was a bit high, or they just outright already consider Espinoza a bust due to elbow soreness. Regardless of his future value, Pomeranz still needs to provide some value in his time with the Red Sox to have it as a real win.

There is a gray area -- wait and see. Not all "blue chips" are the same. Espinoza was 18 and in A-ball with barely more than 100 pro innings when he was traded. Given the usual attrition rate, that builds a whole lot of doubt/value reduction into that blue-chip ness, and could mean that turning it into a mid-to-back-of-the-rotation starter in his prime isn't as bad as it sounds.

curly2 · May 30, 2017

It seemed like with Margot and Guerra (at the time) both being highly-rated prospects, and with the Sox taking on all Kimbrel's money, Dombrowski should have kept Logan Allen out of that deal. He's a long way away but two blue-chippers and a decent utility prospect AND salary relief for the Padres should have been enough for Kimbrel without including Allen.

Cesar Crespo · May 30, 2017

Guerra was mostly helium and I wonder how much value he really had. Plus, given the packages in other trades for MRs, the Kimbrel deal doesn't seem far off.

Minneapolis Millers · May 30, 2017

"Should have kept player X out of the deal." People who hate dealing prospects always say this. I've often said it. But unless you think DD is stupid and just gives up whatever the other team optimistically asks for without doing any negotiating or checking with other teams, then it's not fair to assume that what he gave up wasn't actually the going rate - the cost to get the deal done.

Beyond that, people criticizing what DD gave up in these deals seem consistently to ignore what he didn't give up. He didn't trade major league talent (beyond Shaw). Betts, X, Bradley - all still on the team. He also didn't deal Benintendi. He didn't (yet) deal Devers.

We know that Chicago was asking for major league talent for Sale last season, and came off that request this off-season (but only if instead they got serious blue chip prospects in return). DD also didn't deal Moncada or Kopech for Kimbrel or Pom, which left some signifcant powder dry for the Sale deal.

As for Pom, are we sure today that his ceiling is as a #5 starter? He can't end up being more like a controllable #3? We know this already? And would people have been happy at the time if DD had simply stood pat last July and not traded for a starter at all?

Finally, I can't tell if people here would rather not have Kimbrel or Sale on the team right now.

SydneySox · May 30, 2017

While I think your core point is good, it's undone by the fact no one is saying the Sale deal was bad.

And while many of those who resisted the Kimbrel deal did so because of a perceived overpay, you're playing the same 'tar them all with the same brush game' by saying 'people who hate dealing prospects alwasy say this'.

They don't, not really. And there has to be an acknowledged difference now, rather than last July, in how we're allowed to discuss this.

It certainly seems, now, at the end of May, that the Sox 'won' the Kimbrel deal. But it wasn't that certain last year. And maybe in three years we'll be able to revisit this knowing how Espinosa worked out and then maybe we can also try to talk about it without pointing fingers at hinsight.

mt8thsw9th · May 31, 2017

joe dokes said:
Given the usual attrition rate, that builds a whole lot of doubt/value reduction into that blue-chip ness, and could mean that turning it into a mid-to-back-of-the-rotation starter in his prime isn't as bad as it sounds.

So if you trade a dollar for 25 cents, and the other guy loses the dollar, then it's a good trade?

Ramon AC · May 31, 2017

If you and the other guy are competing in a money-having contest, then it's worth asking who came out ahead in that trade, and whether or not you predicted he'd lose the dollar or if it was just blind luck.

joe dokes · May 31, 2017

mt8thsw9th said:
So if you trade a dollar for 25 cents, and the other guy loses the dollar, then it's a good trade?

I think that begs the question of whether it was a dollar, and whether it's 25 cents. Why not call Espinoza a million dollars and Pomeranz negative a million and ask the same question? Or Espinoza 65 cents and Pomeranz 45 cents. Or the portable defib machine costs 25 cents, but only takes quarters, and all you have is paper. Or one more parking ticket and you get the boot, and you need a quarter for the meter. Trades happen in the real world.

Deadline deals (or close-to-deadline deals) are almost always going to involve some overpay, if you want to keep the money analogy. I dont know what the "discount" is on an 18 year old -- even a highly regarded one.

If you keep the dollar/quarter analogy, this will *always* be a bad trade, even if Pomeranz wins the Cy Young and Espinoza never makes it to MLB. To me that suggests a flaw in the way the trade is analyzed.

Van Everyman · May 31, 2017

I can't understand this argument that "AE for Pom was *definitely* an overpay." There are simply too many factors at play that suggest otherwise or the potential for otherwise.

For one, Dombrowski has more insight into AE than we do – not only his peripherals but also his mental makeup and health. Sure, in the abstract elite potential is enticing but Dombrowski and the scouting team had a fuller picture of Espinoza than anyone else. This is more true because this was a single A kid, not some Moncada-like blue chipper at the highest level of the minors. Ergo, we can't be that certain that the talent we've seen read about was the real deal.

Two, on the other side of the coin, we have little idea how well AE was really viewed across baseball at the time of the trade. Was he seen as a great talent? For sure. Was he seen as a sure thing? By no means. Again, we don't really have the full picture – or how much other teams (with presumably better pitchers to trade than Pom) valued him.

Three, you can't not rate actual performance – no one grades deals based on what they seemed like at the time. You grade them on how they turn out. Obviously if AE turns out to be Clayton Kershaw this trade will be a dud. But thus far, this one is at best a bit of a disappointment for both clubs given injury and/or ineffectiveness on both ends.

And four, all of the criticism presumes there was some other deal to be had – either by getting a better pitcher in return (than an all star) or by giving up less. There is zero indication that any such deal was on the table. Dombrowski clearly wanted to strike quickly before too much of a market developed and he was forced into dealing even more for a guy like Pomeranz.

Obviously, there's room for debate (tho I see no indication thus far that anyone views Pomeranz as a #5 – at worst he's a #4). To me it seems like a mostly fair trade based on all the variables that were at play. But the idea that this trade was certainly an overpay doesn't seem to me to either be backed by the evidence or how trades actually work.

Smiling Joe Hesketh · May 31, 2017

Van Everyman said:
Obviously, there's room for debate (tho I see no indication thus far that anyone views Pomeranz as a #5 – at worst he's a #4). To me it seems like a mostly fair trade based on all the variables that were at play. But the idea that this trade was certainly an overpay doesn't seem to me to either be backed by the evidence or how trades actually work.

Because AE was only 19 at the time of the trade (or hell, maybe only 18, in any case he was extremely young) he's established little track record of actual performance, and thus he's sort of a tabula rasa of projections and hopes so that people can pin any type of career they'd like upon him. The deal was made when all we really knew about him was his stuff; we had very little idea how that stuff would translate to progression through the minors, how that stuff would change as he matured, whether he'd avoid the injury bug, etc.

As AE amasses a track record in his career, we can see how these things play out. So far AE's progress has stalled due to ineffectiveness and now injury, which should change the trade prognosis somewhat.

It's also worth considering the return for AE: Pom was on a continuing contract when he was acquired (ie he wasn't going to be a free agent at the end of the season), and he's arb-eligible for 2018, meaning he would be under team control for a minimum of 2 1/2 years at the time of the trade. His 2017 salary is only $4 million, a relative pittance. He's also only 28, so he's not at as much risk for injury- or age-related falloff as an older pitcher would be, and at 28 he would be considered to be in the prime of his career. This isn't and never was a Bagwell-for-Anderson deal; the return for AE was a starting pitcher who'd be here for some time.

Lose Remerswaal · May 31, 2017

mt8thsw9th said:
So if you trade a dollar for 25 cents, and the other guy loses the dollar, then it's a good trade?

It's not that the other guy lost the dollar it's that the dollar turned out to be counterfeit, so yeah, you win that trade.

StevieNick8 · May 31, 2017

grimshaw said:
Because I'm a masochist, figured it would be a good thread to trace the guys we lost since DD took over. I'll do prospects only since the Following Former Red Sox thread exists.

Moved in the Kimbrel deal
Logan Allen - 11 k/9 as a 20 year old in low A ball with a 1.01 WHIP. 18 walks in 46 innings though.

Javier Guerra - Repeating High A as a 21 year old SS but struggling with a .622 ops.

Carlos Asuaje is 25 and plays 2B - Has had brief stints in the majors, but nothing special this year in AAA. He did slug .477 in the PCL after he lit it up in the Red Sox system, but hasn't repeated it yet, OPS'ing .662. Probably a bench guy, but could get a look since Padres.

Manuel Margot - started out strong, but now has an OPS+ of 84. He is Bradley-lite in CF though and has plus speed, so if he gets to league average, he's a solid regular. He definitely has time since he's 22.

Moved in the Carson Smith deal (Miley was included and Elias came back)
Jonathan Aro - Hasn't pitched since June of last season. Presumably out of baseball.

Moved in the Aaron Hill deal
Wendall Rijo - Recently bumped up to AA as a 21 year old SS. Zero power, but good glove and a few years to develop.

Aaron Wilkerson - 28 year old in AA.

Moved in the Ziegler deal
Jose Almonte - 21 year old in high A. 68 k's in 58 innings, but very wild 29bb. We have plenty of those guys kicking around.

Luis Alejandro Basabe - The lesser Basabe is a 20 year old 2b in high A. He showed flashes in Greenville but has a .647 ops so far in AZ.

Moved straight up for Pomeranz
Anderson Espinoza - 19 in high A. Hasn't pitched since 6-1 of last year and struggled after he was bumped up to that level. He has had a sore elbow since March. Even if he needs surgery at some point, he is so young, he'll still be young for high A. But he does have a Pedro-like frame, so something to watch.

Moved for Abad
Pat Light - 26 and pitching poorly in AAA. The Twins didn't re-sign him.

Moved in the Chris Sale deal
Yoan Moncada - 22 and ops'ing .897 in AAA, but still striking out 1/3 of the time. 10 of 12 in steals.

Michael Kopech - Unhittable in AA - 25 hits and 68k's in 47 innings, but still a little wild (27). Turned 21 in April.

Victor Diaz - 23 year old pitcher and hurt in high A. Struggled in his 3 appearances.

Luis Alexander Basabe - almost the exact same production as his twin bro (.641 ops) but young (20) for high A and plays CF very well.

Moved in the Thornburg deal (Shaw was included)

Josh Pennington - Hasn't pitched yet due to surgery. Could start the year in short season A. Just an arm drafted in the 29th round.

Mauricio Dubon - 22 2b in AA. His slugging hasn't come around yet in the Brewers system, slugging .374. He has a career 304 minor league average, so he'll probably reach the majors as at least a utility guy a la Marco Hernandez at some point. Or he could be Garin Cecchini.

Acquired for Clay Buchholz
Josh Tobias - 2B. Recently hit Portland, after tearing up high A though he is already 24. He's a "high character guy" according to Soxprospects. 3rd base coach upside.

Rule 5 guys were Justin Haley (made the Twins, but is not good as a middle reliever) and Edwin Escobar (out of baseball).

Edit: clarity. Espinoza has sore elbow, not shoulder.
2nd edit: Removed unruly triple slashes.

Really wish Dombrowski had not included Dubon in the Thornburg deal. No one knew how big of a bust that trade would be at this time, but I still felt that including Dubon with Shaw was an overpay. With the infield injuries the Sox have suffered, a depth piece with the potential to be a starter in Dubon would have been nice to have in the system.

joe dokes · Jun 1, 2017

StevieNick8 said:
Really wish Dombrowski had not included Dubon in the Thornburg deal. No one knew how big of a bust that trade would be at this time, but I still felt that including Dubon with Shaw was an overpay. With the infield injuries the Sox have suffered, a depth piece with the potential to be a starter in Dubon would have been nice to have in the system.

Putting aside the fact that it took long-term injuries to both Hernandez and Holt to create this situation, I don't see that still having a guy that hasn't yet played a full season of AA would really be of much help right now.

Ale Xander · Jun 1, 2017

Lose Remerswaal said:
It's not that the other guy lost the dollar it's that the dollar turned out to be counterfeit, so yeah, you win that trade.

9 months ago, the thought was that the quarter was counterfeit, not the dollar. And in either case, doesn't the trade get rescinded? (if counterfeit goods are involved)

Horrible use of resources nonetheless (which was his point), even though resources haven';t lived up to the potential of a finished product. You don't trade your best calf for 5 gallons of milk. Even if the calf dies unexpectedly the next day, it's still a bad trade at the time.

Lose Remerswaal · Jun 1, 2017

Or maybe the Sox knew that is so rare that a Rookie League/Low A Ball pitcher, no matter how good, is likely to be worth that dollar that it was a good trade from the get go?

Smiling Joe Hesketh · Jun 1, 2017

Ale Xander said:
9 months ago, the thought was that the quarter was counterfeit, not the dollar. And in either case, doesn't the trade get rescinded? (if counterfeit goods are involved)

Horrible use of resources nonetheless (which was his point), even though resources haven';t lived up to the potential of a finished product. You don't trade a calf for 5 gallons of milk. Even if the calf dies unexpectedly the next day, it's still a bad trade at the time.

The problem here is that you're assuming that AE is the calf and there's frankly no justifiable way to do so given his extreme youth and total lack of baseball experience through the minors at the time of the trade. This isn't some 22 year old dominating AAA, this was an 18 year old kid who had yet to go through the vetting gauntlet that is the minor league ladder.

People are VASTLY underestimating the difficulty of a young pitching prospect eventually having some sort of major league impact at all. Better prospects than AE have failed to make a major league impact: Roger Salkeld (#3 prospect in all of baseball in 1992), Todd Van Poppel, Kirk Dressendorfer, 2 of the 3 guys from Generation K....the list goes on and on.

It's patently ridiculous to label AE a "calf" in your analogy, because he might actually be a mule. It's yet to be determined. And frankly he's not off to a promising start given his current situation.

As of this morning Pomeranz has 8 victories in a Red Sox uniform. I'd give 50/50 odds that AE never gets 8 major league wins TOTAL. The attrition rate is simply too high to state anything about his future with confidence.

Lose Remerswaal · Jun 1, 2017

StevieNick8 said:
Really wish Dombrowski had not included Dubon in the Thornburg deal. No one knew how big of a bust that trade would be at this time, but I still felt that including Dubon with Shaw was an overpay. With the infield injuries the Sox have suffered, a depth piece with the potential to be a starter in Dubon would have been nice to have in the system.

You have no idea how big of a bust that trade will be. It's two months into the season, for pete's sake, and Dubon and Thornburg have both accomplished nothing.

Average Reds · Jun 1, 2017

Lose Remerswaal said:
Or maybe the Sox knew that is so rare that a Rookie League/Low A Ball pitcher, no matter how good, is likely to be worth that dollar that it was a good trade from the get go?

I find it incredible that people are buying into the ridiculous "dollar" analogy. (And no, that is not directed at you, Lose.)

Prospects are speculative. Rookie league pitchers are hyper-speculative. For anyone to make the statement that we gave up a dollar to get a quarter in the deal for Pom is the definition of insanity.

People need to get over this.

Cesar Crespo · Jun 1, 2017

joe dokes said:
Putting aside the fact that it took long-term injuries to both Hernandez and Holt to create this situation, I don't see that still having a guy that hasn't yet played a full season of AA would really be of much help right now.

He's slashing .321/.361/.468 with 26bb/64k over 488 PA at the AA level. That's a full season. I'm not sure why he's even in AA at this point given his success. The power numbers are misleading but he looks like a guy who will hit for contact, play good defense and steal a base.

With that said, I'm as big a Dubon fanboy as they come and even suggested last year he could be a serious 3b candidate this season for the Redsox and I'd still make the Thornburg trade. Thornburg has/had the chance to be great/elite. Dubon has an outside chance of being a regular and I think Shaw's true self is closer to his 2016 form.

Cesar Crespo · Jun 1, 2017

Average Reds said:
I find it incredible that people are buying into the ridiculous "dollar" analogy. (And no, that is not directed at you, Lose.)

Prospects are speculative. Rookie league pitchers are hyper-speculative. For anyone to make the statement that we gave up a dollar to get a quarter in the deal for Pom is the definition of insanity.

People need to get over this.

Pom also had a 2.45 era in 102ip with 115k/41bb prior to the trade and 2 previous seasons of success in the bullpen. At the time of the deal, he was worth a lot more than a "quarter." It's possible he still ends up being more than a 3 or 4 himself. People are judging the trade on information we didn't know at the time (Pom's injury history). And after the fact, it was far too late to rescind the deal if you were the Redsox.

Ale Xander · Jun 1, 2017

Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
The problem here is that you're assuming that AE is the calf and there's frankly no justifiable way to do so given his extreme youth and total lack of baseball experience through the minors at the time of the trade. This isn't some 22 year old dominating AAA, this was an 18 year old kid who had yet to go through the vetting gauntlet that is the minor league ladder.

People are VASTLY underestimating the difficulty of a young pitching prospect eventually having some sort of major league impact at all. Better prospects than AE have failed to make a major league impact: Roger Salkeld (#3 prospect in all of baseball in 1992), Todd Van Poppel, Kirk Dressendorfer, 2 of the 3 guys from Generation K....the list goes on and on.

It's patently ridiculous to label AE a "calf" in your analogy, because he might actually be a mule. It's yet to be determined. And frankly he's not off to a promising start given his current situation.

As of this morning Pomeranz has 8 victories in a Red Sox uniform. I'd give 50/50 odds that AE never gets 8 major league wins TOTAL. The attrition rate is simply too high to state anything about his future with confidence.

Good points and examples, 5 gallons of milk is better than nothing (TVP, KD), and Pomeranz is indeed a better asset than a 33yo Tim Belcher.

I'm calling AE a calf because was close to a consensus #1 pitching prospect, at worse #2 to Kopech, in the organization. But we're all happy that the team was able to obtain the best grass-fed, organic, in its prime, Jersey cow, in all the land, a few months later for mainly a fast, large, baby Bobby bull with Testicular cancer. (no offense, ML)

mauf · Jun 1, 2017

Great OP, @grimshaw

I'll confess that I was in the school that said you should never hand out a FA contract like Price's, and therefore should never trade away a prospect like Espinoza. (Not that AE was anything close to a sure thing, but that you had to hoard prospects of his caliber if you weren't willing to pay the going rate for above-average major league SPs). The latter's arm troubles obviously make the trade look better; they might also explain why DD complained less than many of us thought was warranted about the way the Padres handled Pomeranz's medicals.

Smiling Joe Hesketh · Jun 1, 2017

Here's a quick question for everyone: what do you think of Clay Buchholz' career?

Going into the 2008 season he was the #2 prospect in all of baseball according to B-Prospectus, and #4 according to Baseball America.

He's had a 10 year career: 81-62, 4.01 ERA, 108 ERA+. 2 All Star appearances, 15.5 WAR.

Do you consider this career to be a disappointment? The answer to that might say a lot about the reality of prospect rankings.

mauf · Jun 1, 2017

Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Here's a quick question for everyone: what do you think of Clay Buchholz' career?

Going into the 2008 season he was the #2 prospect in all of baseball according to B-Prospectus, and #4 according to Baseball America.

He's had a 10 year career: 81-62, 4.01 ERA, 108 ERA+. 2 All Star appearances, 15.5 WAR.

Do you consider this career to be a disappointment? The answer to that might say a lot about the reality of prospect rankings.

If he had put up those numbers in 1600 innings over 10 years, he'd be an unqualified success. At 1175 innings, it's debatable.

Frankly, if the Sox knew his durability would be so poor, they likely would've converted him to relief -- because if you dilute those numbers with 400-500 innings of replacement-level performances from #6-7 guys, the results wouldn't be something you'd sign up for in foresight.

Smiling Joe Hesketh · Jun 1, 2017

maufman said:
If he had put up those numbers in 1600 innings over 10 years, he'd be an unqualified success. At 1175 innings, it's debatable.

I disagree: that career is an amazingly fine one, and would be more than a satisfactory return for the #2 prospect in all of baseball.

Pitching is hard. Pitching effectively is harder. Staying healthy while doing do is the hardest thing of all. Getting 81 wins out of such a prospect should have people dancing in the proverbial streets.

I strongly feel that fans' expectations regarding pitching prospects need to be extremely tempered.

Cesar Crespo · Jun 1, 2017

Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Here's a quick question for everyone: what do you think of Clay Buchholz' career?

Going into the 2008 season he was the #2 prospect in all of baseball according to B-Prospectus, and #4 according to Baseball America.

He's had a 10 year career: 81-62, 4.01 ERA, 108 ERA+. 2 All Star appearances, 15.5 WAR.

Do you consider this career to be a disappointment? The answer to that might say a lot about the reality of prospect rankings.

Interesting enough, his can't miss Yankee counterpart is 88-79, 4.46 era, 94 ERA+. 1 All Star appearance with an 11.6 WAR. He also topped out at #2 on BP and #4 on BA the year earlier.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hugheph01.shtml

Smiling Joe Hesketh · Jun 1, 2017

But Hughes 2.50 assured me he'd be better than Pedro! Cubic transformation, my ass.

Plympton91 · Jun 1, 2017

I've said it once or twice already, but people who like following prospects seriously and baseball prediction stuff in general should read the book "Superforecasting" The concepts in there just really help to illuminate the discussion here about Pomeranz vs Espinoza. Think about all the range of things that could happen with Pomeranaz in 2017---from catastrophic injury to him losing his command to him being adequate to him becoming an all star again. Assign a probability to each of those events, and remember that none of them is 0, and they have to sum to 100. Now do the same for Espinoza. But Espinoza is at least 2 years from the majors--so those bad things that could happen to Pomeranz, they're at least 3 times more likely to happen to Espinoza before he even reaches the majors.

You quickly start to realize that what matters in trade is what you are getting at the major league level, not what you're giving up at the minor league level.

Snodgrass'Muff · Jun 1, 2017

Plympton91 said:
You quickly start to realize that what matters in trade is what you are getting at the major league level, not what you're giving up at the minor league level.

This is a preposterous over-simplification. There are so many variables to consider that you simply can't make this statement. A team like the White Sox got hosed by the Red Sox if we take your position at face value. The Yankees got fleeced last trade deadline in sending away two major league relievers and only getting prospects back.

When you're talking about really far away prospects, yeah, you're probably going to win a trade when you're getting a decent major leaguer back in a 1 for 1 swap. But outside of that highly specific circumstance, it's all about the context. The White Sox made two very good trades this past winter, given what their short term outlook was. The Yankees managed to go from an old team with a thin farm to a very exciting young team with lots of help on the way in the span of about a year by making those trades. The Red Sox expended almost all of heir prospect capital (arguably the best in the game at the deadline last year) and put the finishing touches on an already very good and fairly young major league roster.

Trades need to be evaluated by considering dozens of factors. Sometimes getting prospects makes more sense than sending them away. Sometimes giving up some of the most highly rated prospects in the game to get one of the best pitchers in the game is the right move. Sometimes giving up redundant prospects for a great reliever is a good move.

SydneySox · Jun 1, 2017

Sometimes things are good and sometimes they're bad but the only thing that sucks is people trying to work out who 'won' while the game is still being played.

If people want to know who won, you have to wait. SJH's excellent point about Clay Buchholz is apt in that regard.

Otherwise it's all just an interesting discussion exercise that needs to stay as one to still be worthwhile.

Plympton91 · Jun 1, 2017

Snod: Agree with your points above. My statement was a simplification and made from the perspective of a contending team that is "buying." Sellers have a different calculus absolutely.

johnnywayback · Jun 2, 2017

Minneapolis Millers said:
"Should have kept player X out of the deal." People who hate dealing prospects always say this. I've often said it. But unless you think DD is stupid and just gives up whatever the other team optimistically asks for without doing any negotiating or checking with other teams, then it's not fair to assume that what he gave up wasn't actually the going rate - the cost to get the deal done.

Except... I do kind of think this. To be clear, I don't think he's stupid. I think he identifies players he wants and doesn't really care that much about the value proposition involved in getting them. Because of this he does consistently overpay -- regardless of whether the moves work out or not, he consistently gives up more than the market expects. That's not an accident or a brainfart, it's a strategy. And it's why people always describe him as "decisive" and "aggressive."

I think there are two separate valid concerns about this strategy, by the way, and I apologize if I've brought this up elsewhere. One is that it's just basically the wrong strategy -- that the playoffs are a crapshoot, so once you're a team that's likely to make the playoffs (let's say, an 88-win team), overpaying in future assets to continue to marginally improve your chances is a sucker bet. The other, though, is maybe more interesting: If you care less about the value proposition than you do about getting Your Guy, then it adds a ton of pressure on you to be right about picking Your Guy. And Dombrowski's record on that so far is decidedly mixed (although Kimbrel's resurgence this year helps his case a lot).

Gone but not forgotten - Dombrowski's Dealings.

Member

Certain Class of Poster

79

Member

Dorito Dawg

polka king

Member

Member

anti-SoSHal

Shanghai Warrior

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play

Member

Member

Member

Throw Momma From the Train

anti-SoSHal

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

79

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

A dash of cool to add the heat

anti-SoSHal

Member

Member

Member

Throw Momma From the Train

Experiencing Furry Panic

New Member

Member

Hamilton

Experiencing Furry Panic

Throw Momma From the Train

Experiencing Furry Panic

Member

79

79

Hamilton

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Throw Momma From the Train

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Throw Momma From the Train

Member

79

Throw Momma From the Train

bubble burster

oppresses WARmongers

A dash of cool to add the heat

bubble burster

Member