SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Red Sox acquire RHP Nate Eovaldi from TB for Jalen Beeks
|
Post by bulldougy on Oct 29, 2018 4:03:04 GMT -5
At least Beeks got a nice going away gift, a ring and maybe a postseason share.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 30, 2018 8:24:59 GMT -5
Been thinking about it and I’m thinking they should offer Eovaldi the QO. The AAV is too high, but it’s one year and that show me contract isn’t a bad idea with him. Also, as cruel as it is, it could crush his market and allow you to sign him on a better deal which he may prefer because of his injury history.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 30, 2018 8:31:07 GMT -5
He's not eligible. Only players who've spent the entire season with the same club can receive a qualifying offer.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 30, 2018 8:49:13 GMT -5
He's not eligible. Only players who've spent the entire season with the same club can receive a qualifying offer. Right thank you for the reminder
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Oct 30, 2018 9:32:57 GMT -5
Another way that top teams no longer have the advantage that Theo had in building a farm system while being successful. Between the loss of the two pick compensation, the moving of the comp Ickes to the end of the round, and the aforementioned loss of Wagner rights (and increasing the qo) and the draft cap and international signing cap, there are real consequences to being good.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,922
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 31, 2018 1:20:34 GMT -5
I was just wondering how everyone who didn't like this trade feels now? Would you still not make the trade of Beeks for Nathan or with the way he has pitched in the playoffs would you do it. Were there that many people who didn’t like the trade? I just re-read the first 8 or so pages of the thread and the majority of posters disliked the trade. Some hated it. Some were OK with it because they saw Eovaldi as a solid back-end-of-rotation guy who would be a very good post-season reliever. A very few really liked it.
This next part is going to sound like blowing my own horn, but what I'm actually boosting here is a stat I was using.
xwOBA is a Statcast-based metric that takes the exit velocity and launch angle of every batted ball and converts it into a set of result probabilities, and then adds in K and BB.
I looked at Eovadi's xwOBA and discovered he was the best available starter, and a #2 / #3 borderline guy (IIRC).
Anybody could have done that. Once someone else reported it, anyone could have believed it, and believed it be a better judge of how well he had actually pitched than his mediocre ERA.
Very few people did. That genuinely puzzles me.
OK, this next part I actually did: I adjusted the stat for how many balls were hit to CF (since xwOBA ignores horizontal angle), for quality of opposing hitters (from Baseball Prospectus), and for home ballpark K and BB rate. Only the first required some original research.
Those adjusted numbers put Eovaldi as a pure #2.
Then I looked at his game logs and discovered he'd been left in several times to take a beating (most egregiously, the B2B2B HR's that Bregman tried to taunt him with), which inflated his xWOBA. I re-labeled him a "borderline ace" and changed my take on the trade from loving it to being "ecstatic."
A few people seemed to be paying attention or coming independently to a similar conclusion (fenwaythehardway, pedrofanforever, philbosoxfan, telson of course) and realized we had beaten the Yankees to the best pitcher of any sort on the market ... but again, the puzzle is why so few bought into that, when it was argued for with very straightforward facts.
Anyway, I have no idea what it will take to re-sign him but it'll be substantially less than it will take to sign him away from here. He's been hugged by every teammate and he knows he can be part of a small dynasty.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Oct 31, 2018 11:07:53 GMT -5
Were there that many people who didn’t like the trade? I just re-read the first 8 or so pages of the thread and the majority of posters disliked the trade. Some hated it. Some were OK with it because they saw Eovaldi as a solid back-end-of-rotation guy who would be a very good post-season reliever. A very few really liked it.
This next part is going to sound like blowing my own horn, but what I'm actually boosting here is a stat I was using. xwOBA is a Statcast-based metric that takes the exit velocity and launch angle of every batted ball and converts it into a set of result probabilities, and then adds in K and BB. I looked at Eovadi's xwOBA and discovered he was the best available starter, and a #2 / #3 borderline guy (IIRC). Anybody could have done that. Once someone else reported it, anyone could have believed it, and believed it be a better judge of how well he had actually pitched than his mediocre ERA. Very few people did. That genuinely puzzles me.
OK, this next part I actually did: I adjusted the stat for how many balls were hit to CF (since xwOBA ignores horizontal angle), for quality of opposing hitters (from Baseball Prospectus), and for home ballpark K and BB rate. Only the first required some original research.
Those adjusted numbers put Eovaldi as a pure #2.
Then I looked at his game logs and discovered he'd been left in several times to take a beating (most egregiously, the B2B2B HR's that Bregman tried to taunt him with), which inflated his xWOBA. I re-labeled him a "borderline ace" and changed my take on the trade from loving it to being "ecstatic." A few people seemed to be paying attention or coming independently to a similar conclusion (fenwaythehardway, pedrofanforever, philbosoxfan, telson of course) and realized we had beaten the Yankees to the best pitcher of any sort on the market ... but again, the puzzle is why so few bought into that, when it was argued for with very straightforward facts.
Anyway, I have no idea what it will take to re-sign him but it'll be substantially less than it will take to sign him away from here. He's been hugged by every teammate and he knows he can be part of a small dynasty.
I’m not so sure he’d take substantially less here. The guy has had arm isssues in the past. He is 29. He is coming off a preternatural post season run where he blew 102 mile an hour fastballs by one of the ten best players in the game. This is his chance to get his big contract. contract. I wouldn’t begrudge him if he took the most money possible.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Oct 31, 2018 11:13:54 GMT -5
... but again, the puzzle is why so few bought into that, when it was argued for with very straightforward facts.
There is a low opinion of any pitcher less than a clear league wide #1
|
|
|
Post by chrisfromnc on Oct 31, 2018 14:26:51 GMT -5
I would love it if they tried something creative with him that accounts for both his tremendous talent and his past injury history. Maybe some kind of contract like the one for John Lackey. I don't mean just like it, in the sense that the Red Sox get an extra year at league minimum if a certain injury occurs, but perhaps something that is very incentive based (probably using starts as the basis). Start with easy to reach salary plateaus (10 or 15 starts) and then add dollars for every five starts to 30. Perhaps you throw in an opt out to sweeten the deal for him. There are all kinds of out-of-the box ways to make this happen if both sides want to do that.
I would love see this guy on the mound in a Sox uniform for a long time. I hope they offer him a fair contract.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 31, 2018 16:05:36 GMT -5
... but again, the puzzle is why so few bought into that, when it was argued for with very straightforward facts.
You're often brilliant, but also could seem to some make a lot of extravagant claims.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,922
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 31, 2018 17:41:52 GMT -5
You're often brilliant, but also could seem to some make a lot of extravagant claims. The latter is absolutely true (e.g., the odds were decent that Michael Kopech would be as good as Chris Sale by the time Sale's contract was up), but saying that a guy had the best xwOBA of any starter on the trade market is not one of those claims.
I think it's the unfamiliarity of the stat. For good reasons, it's hard to grasp that the stat with the most math involved in its production (by far) is also, paradoxically, the least noisiest.
It's the opposite of WAR, in fact. Each one of the WAR components is noisy, and so when you add them together you have a lot of noise. xwOBA is an even more math-intensive stat, but all the math is designed to remove noise.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 31, 2018 18:42:26 GMT -5
You're often brilliant, but also could seem to some make a lot of extravagant claims. The latter is absolutely true (e.g., the odds were decent that Michael Kopech would be as good as Chris Sale by the time Sale's contract was up), but saying that a guy had the best xwOBA of any starter on the trade market is not one of those claims.
I think it's the unfamiliarity of the stat. For good reasons, it's hard to grasp that the stat with the most math involved in its production (by far) is also, paradoxically, the least noisiest.
It's the opposite of WAR, in fact. Each one of the WAR components is noisy, and so when you add them together you have a lot of noise. xwOBA is an even more math-intensive stat, but all the math is designed to remove noise.
It's not just that it's an unfamiliar stat, but that you often seem to take a stat and then make two or three adjustments that seem to make it a brand new idiosyncratic stat, perhaps xwOBAemv. And you also seem to claim a guy is better than everyone else thinks about once a week (remember I said seem). But in the original thread I did have the post after yours saying it seemed like a pretty good trade. Though he had pretty bad results in Sox starts 3-9, no? (I have a mental block on processing "the former, the latter," so for a second I thought you were saying it was "absolutely true" that you are "often brilliant")
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,922
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 31, 2018 23:20:15 GMT -5
The latter is absolutely true (e.g., the odds were decent that Michael Kopech would be as good as Chris Sale by the time Sale's contract was up), but saying that a guy had the best xwOBA of any starter on the trade market is not one of those claims.
I think it's the unfamiliarity of the stat. For good reasons, it's hard to grasp that the stat with the most math involved in its production (by far) is also, paradoxically, the least noisiest.
It's the opposite of WAR, in fact. Each one of the WAR components is noisy, and so when you add them together you have a lot of noise. xwOBA is an even more math-intensive stat, but all the math is designed to remove noise.
It's not just that it's an unfamiliar stat, but that you often seem to take a stat and then make two or three adjustments that seem to make it a brand new idiosyncratic stat, perhaps xwOBAemv. And you also seem to claim a guy is better than everyone else thinks about once a week (remember I said seem). But in the original thread I did have the post after yours saying it seemed like a pretty good trade. Though he had pretty bad results in Sox starts 3-9, no? (I have a mental block on processing "the former, the latter," so for a second I thought you were saying it was "absolutely true" that you are "often brilliant") The three adjustments I made were pretty obviously improvements, I thought: adjusting for quality of opposition, for home park effect on K and BB, and for the number of balls hit to CF where they do less damage. But no one bought the argument before I made those adjustments! They just made him even better.
(I have a mental block on processing "the former, the latter," so for a second I thought you were saying it was "absolutely true" that you are "often brilliant")
That's why I added the parenthetical explanation!
I never changed my mind about him in his dull stretch. Probably because I wasn't watching the games!
|
|
|