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 bosox81 on Jul 25, 2018 15:17:52 GMT -5
And true to form, DD is putting all the eggs in one basket. WS or bust this year folks. (Mathematically, I already know which one has the higher probability.) Beeks is now all his eggs? If he is then our eggs were spoiled anyways. No, more like the last egg.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jul 25, 2018 15:18:10 GMT -5
We're having a historic season to date; yet the Yanks are relatively close behind us in the standings and the Astros and Indians have teams that are built well for the playoffs. Why wouldn't you want Dombrowski to try and improve the 2018 team? Jalen Beeks and Santiago Espinal are not the difference between good and great teams next year or beyond.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 25, 2018 15:20:48 GMT -5
Alright then, how about we trade Mata and Houck for a rental reliever, as well. It will greatly improve our chances at this WS.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,358
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jul 25, 2018 15:23:18 GMT -5
And true to form, DD is putting all the eggs in one basket. WS or bust this year folks. (Mathematically, I already know which one has the higher probability.) C’mon... giving up Beeks is hardly “bust.” And actually his form hasn’t been that: he got Kimbrel, who was under multi-year control; Pomeranz, multiyear; Sale, a great contract. Smith and Thornburg might not have worked out, but they weren’t rentals. He signed Moreland cheap, which helped sign JDM. It actually seems like the “form” is more cautious than that.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,358
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jul 25, 2018 15:30:46 GMT -5
Alright then, how about we trade Mata and Houck for a rental reliever, as well. It will greatly improve our chances at this WS. That is hyperbole. How did they get Carson Smith? Wade Miley. Can’t complain. Thornburg? Shaw and Dubon? Not the bank. Of the premier prospects he’s traded, who would you take back to undo the trade? Margot, losing Kimbrel? Espinosa, losing Pomeranz (who was excellent last year)? Kopech and Mocada, losing Sale? I think there is a significant chance the Sox will get more WAR out of those three than the prospects produce combined in their careers.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Jul 25, 2018 15:32:59 GMT -5
Even though the Rays don't spend much on players, they seem to develop pitchers. I wish I knew their secret. Maybe they take Beeks to the next level. They're very good at it.
Just heard that Kelly went on the DL with a broken leg. What, it's not broken yet? Well, I can take care of that...
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Jul 25, 2018 15:33:08 GMT -5
This isn’t statistics, it’s guessing. That’s fine but don’t act like it’s more than that. It's more than just guessing with Beeks -- it includes reports pegging him as back-of-the-rotation starter or reliever, the implication of a formidable talent evaluator like DD being willing to part with him for a 10-week rental, as well as clear-eyed observation of things like velocity, location, actual (as opposed to imagined) swings and misses, etc. It's a calculated bet based on probabilistic outcomes. For those of you so enamored with Beeks (despite his horrific, small-sample MLB performance) and don't like being disagreed with, can you point to the pitching prospects that Dombrowski has given up that later came back to haunt him as effective, cost-controlled MLB starters? It's not a long list. And what percentage of 25-year old, AAA pitchers become viable starters at the MLB level? To be fair, the vast, vast majority of the pitchers in the Red Sox minor league system are highly, highly unlikely to match Eovaldi's performance as a starter this year. He's been a bona fide #3. That means he's been in a group of the top 61-90 MLB starters. Interestingly enough, Eovaldi is only 3 years older than Beeks.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 25, 2018 15:33:36 GMT -5
I mean you've watched the playoffs in recent years right? How does this relate to 162 game season? The idea of starting a game with a 7th/8th inning type in front of your 4th or 5th starter has a lot of merit and subject of a lot of study over the last several years. If gives you a power arm against the opposing team’s 1-2-3 means your 4/5 starter only faces them twice, which increases his effectiveness while ostensibly seeing their 7-8-9 three times. Theoretically that gets you to the late 7th or 8th or later depending on whether the opener goes 1 or 2 innings. It’s a great strategy for the back end of the rotation to maximize outcomes. Becomes even more effective if MLB expands rosters to 26 men, but look for more teams to develop 2 inning relievers to use as openers. It works and you’d only have to use them as openers twice a week or so. Another similar - though much different - proposal where there is less data is opening with one of your 1-2-3 starters on his throw day. This gets into a pitch count issue (usually not going more that 30 or so full effort pitches during the side throw day, but it also has potential as an opener strategy. The resistance to the opener idea will likely come from the relievers more than anyone else. All the metrics for getting paid are linked to set-up/closer type stats and potential. Meanwhile, starters will prob love because they can get credit for a W with only 4 innings of work if someone else opens.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 25, 2018 15:48:58 GMT -5
How does this relate to 162 game season? The idea of starting a game with a 7th/8th inning type in front of your 4th or 5th starter has a lot of merit and subject of a lot of study over the last several years. If gives you a power arm against the opposing team’s 1-2-3 means your 4/5 starter only faces them twice, which increases his effectiveness while ostensibly seeing their 7-8-9 three times. Theoretically that gets you to the late 7th or 8th or later depending on whether the opener goes 1 or 2 innings. It’s a great strategy for the back end of the rotation to maximize outcomes. Becomes even more effective if MLB expands rosters to 26 men, but look for more teams to develop 2 inning relievers to use as openers. It works and you’d only have to use them as openers twice a week or so. Another similar - though much different - proposal where there is less data is opening with one of your 1-2-3 starters on his throw day. This gets into a pitch count issue (usually not going more that 30 or so full effort pitches during the side throw day, but it also has potential as an opener strategy. The resistance to the opener idea will likely come from the relievers more than anyone else. All the metrics for getting paid are linked to set-up/closer type stats and potential. Meanwhile, starters will prob love because they can get credit for a W with only 4 innings of work if someone else opens. I'll give you that if the rosters expanded to 26, it's more practical. On a 25 man roster, it's a bad strategy. You're putting a ton of pressure on AAA arms (by calling them up and down), your 1-4 starters to eat innings, your bench (by carrying a 3 man bench at times). The real reason why the Ray's are doing this because they don't want to spend money on another starter, so now they're trying reinvent the wheel because they're cheap. Edit- What happens when the Ray's go to extra innings on a bullpen day? Has this even happened yet on their bullpen days?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2018 15:53:23 GMT -5
This isn’t statistics, it’s guessing. That’s fine but don’t act like it’s more than that. It's more than just guessing with Beeks -- it includes reports pegging him as back-of-the-rotation starter or reliever, the implication of a formidable talent evaluator like DD being willing to part with him for a 10-week rental, as well as clear-eyed observation of things like velocity, location, actual (as opposed to imagined) swings and misses, etc. It's a calculated bet based on probabilistic outcomes. For those of you so enamored with Beeks (despite his horrific, small-sample MLB performance) and don't like being disagreed with, can you point to the pitching prospects that Dombrowski has given up that later came back to haunt him as effective, cost-controlled MLB starters? It's not a long list. Is Beeks the next Jair Jurrgens or Jason Frasor? What percentage of 25-year old, AAA pitchers become viable starters at the MLB level? To be fair, the vast, vast majority of the pitchers in the Red Sox minor league system are highly, highly unlikely to match Eovaldi's performance as a starter this year. He's been a bona fide #3. That means he's been in a group of the top 61-90 MLB starters. Interestingly enough, Eovaldi is only 3 years older than Beeks. When you say "Beeks putting up starter numbers like Eovaldi against major league hitters would be a 2-3 standard deviation outcome.", that is guessing. You're taking scouting reports and predictions and using them as a baseline. That's not statistics or math, but you try to imply that it is by using the standard deviation outcome term. Who is the authority of future statistics and why should we believe that what they're saying is advanced math and not just guesses?
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Jul 25, 2018 15:57:51 GMT -5
It's more than just guessing with Beeks -- it includes reports pegging him as back-of-the-rotation starter or reliever, the implication of a formidable talent evaluator like DD being willing to part with him for a 10-week rental, as well as clear-eyed observation of things like velocity, location, actual (as opposed to imagined) swings and misses, etc. It's a calculated bet based on probabilistic outcomes. For those of you so enamored with Beeks (despite his horrific, small-sample MLB performance) and don't like being disagreed with, can you point to the pitching prospects that Dombrowski has given up that later came back to haunt him as effective, cost-controlled MLB starters? It's not a long list. Is Beeks the next Jair Jurrgens or Jason Frasor? What percentage of 25-year old, AAA pitchers become viable starters at the MLB level? To be fair, the vast, vast majority of the pitchers in the Red Sox minor league system are highly, highly unlikely to match Eovaldi's performance as a starter this year. He's been a bona fide #3. That means he's been in a group of the top 61-90 MLB starters. Interestingly enough, Eovaldi is only 3 years older than Beeks. When you say "Beeks putting up starter numbers like Eovaldi against major league hitters would be a 2-3 standard deviation outcome.", that is guessing. You're taking scouting reports and predictions and using them as a baseline. That's not statistics or math, but you try to imply that it is by using the standard deviation outcome term. Who is the authority of future statistics and why should we believe that what they're saying is advanced math and not just guesses? Using scouting reports, informed predictions and historical precedent as a baseline isn't statistics? OK, let's go back to your counting Beeks' considerable swings and misses, then. Let's agree on this -- I don't think much of your posts or thought process, and you don't think much of mine. Let's agree to ignore each other's posts from here on out.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 25, 2018 16:02:44 GMT -5
You have to love this board. Yesterday it was "Gotta replace Pomeranz!", "Pom can't throw another inning for the Sox except maybe out of the pen!" etc.
Boom they replace Pomeranz with an off the radar pick up who, no matter what, should be a big improvement on what he showed all season and what do we get? "They'll be terrible in 3 years!" "The farm system is decimated!" (ok that's an exaggeration, but not by much).
Newsflash - the Sox are 71 and 32, not 32 and 71. Beeks wsa not penciled in as the #3 starter next season (maaaaaaaybe #5 if he ever translated his stuff from AAA). I've been a Sox fan since I was 5 and my grandpa took me to Fenway for the first time, that was over 65 years ago, and I'm amazed at the pessimism that persists. I admit to having been a victim of it after '67, '75 and especially '86 - but we've won *THREE* World Series since then and we are currently the badasses of baseball in 2018. Not going to worry about how we might suck in 2020 or 2021.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2018 16:05:41 GMT -5
When you say "Beeks putting up starter numbers like Eovaldi against major league hitters would be a 2-3 standard deviation outcome.", that is guessing. You're taking scouting reports and predictions and using them as a baseline. That's not statistics or math, but you try to imply that it is by using the standard deviation outcome term. Who is the authority of future statistics and why should we believe that what they're saying is advanced math and not just guesses? Using scouting reports, predictions and historical precedent as a baseline isn't statistics? OK, let's go back to your counting Beeks' considerable swings and misses, then. Let's agree on this -- I don't think much of your posts or thought process, and you don't think much of mine. Let's agree to ignore each other's posts from here on out. It's not personal if I disagree with you. I don't have a problem and there's no need to jump that far into a "we'll never get along in a million years" stance. I'm not disagreeing just for the sake of arguing. I made a mistake by misremembering a tweet about Beeks' start regarding his swings and misses and showing how the start was nowhere near as bad as it looks on paper. I know it existed but don't have it saved. Statistics already happened. They don't exist in the future yet. I'm dropping it now.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2018 16:10:19 GMT -5
Alright then, how about we trade Mata and Houck for a rental reliever, as well. It will greatly improve our chances at this WS. And you really think this could happen? Since when do rental relievers cost you two of your top 2 healthy pitching prospects? That's silly. They gave up a future back end starter/reliever for a starting pitcher that's good enough to crack their top 4 if E-Rod can't come back all the way. They now have four reliable starters for the post-season. Beeks will probably be a useful pitcher, but hardly irreplaceable or somebody that will be a core member of future Red Sox teams.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 25, 2018 16:13:46 GMT -5
Alright then, how about we trade Mata and Houck for a rental reliever, as well. It will greatly improve our chances at this WS. That is hyperbole. How did they get Carson Smith? Wade Miley. Can’t complain. Thornburg? Shaw and Dubon? Not the bank. Of the premier prospects he’s traded, who would you take back to undo the trade? Margot, losing Kimbrel? Espinosa, losing Pomeranz (who was excellent last year)? Kopech and Mocada, losing Sale? I think there is a significant chance the Sox will get more WAR out of those three than the prospects produce combined in their careers. That's all periphery of the larger point: The Sox better win the WS this year.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jul 25, 2018 16:14:17 GMT -5
One thing that I don't think has been brought up: Would anyone have been surprised if the package for Eovaldi was actually Beeks + upper level relief guy (e.g., Williams Jerez) or a lower level relative unknown (e.g., Alexander Montero)? I'm at least glad that Dave has now made two trades and given up exactly two prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 25, 2018 16:18:42 GMT -5
i wonder if they already know ERod is basically gone. It isn't so much the price paid, it is the pitcher, and i am not going to quote 2018 pitching lines to make positive points. What i don't like, historically, is the guy's K rate when he is throwing 99.
I will gladly be called a fool if he is the second coming, but no way will I say this is the best use of our limited resources. I will rooting for the mofo, that much is true.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 25, 2018 16:20:21 GMT -5
Beeks also slots in as the 16th best prospect in the Rays system according to MLB.com. I believe he was 6th on Boston's list at the time. Obviously not a player that we want to give away for free, but that doesn't really break the bank or prevent us from making future moves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 16:21:30 GMT -5
What a terrible trade. Why would you trade the #6 prospect to get a half a season of a starter with an ERA over 4 when you only sort of need one. This could be the next Thornburg trade. Only difference is it hurts you more because Beeks will now be playing against you in the division. I have a feeling this is because he wasn't great in his first 2 games, but that is not unusual. Jake Arrieta started his career with a 5.73 ERA in Baltimore over 3 1/2 seasons. Mariano Rivera put up a 5.51 ERA in his rookie season. Beeks is no Arrieta or Rivera, but you can't make these mistakes. This is the final straw, fire Dombrowski. I know with ERod and Wright out and Pomeranz struggling, I might go after Eovoldi, but not for any top 20 prospect in this system, which in most systems would be a top 40.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 25, 2018 16:26:45 GMT -5
You have to love this board. Yesterday it was "Gotta replace Pomeranz!", "Pom can't throw another inning for the Sox except maybe out of the pen!" etc.
Boom they replace Pomeranz with an off the radar pick up who, no matter what, should be a big improvement on what he showed all season and what do we get? "They'll be terrible in 3 years!" "The farm system is decimated!" (ok that's an exaggeration, but not by much). Newsflash - the Sox are 71 and 32, not 32 and 71. Beeks wsa not penciled in as the #3 starter next season (maaaaaaaybe #5 if he ever translated his stuff from AAA). I've been a Sox fan since I was 5 and my grandpa took me to Fenway for the first time, that was over 65 years ago, and I'm amazed at the pessimism that persists. I admit to having been a victim of it after '67, '75 and especially '86 - but we've won *THREE* World Series since then and we are currently the badasses of baseball in 2018. Not going to worry about how we might suck in 2020 or 2021. Welcome to Boston.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 25, 2018 16:30:45 GMT -5
So if Beeks is like a top 40 prospect in most systems that makes him about the 1000th best prospect in baseball. Put that way it hardly seems earth shattering, and makes as much sense as raising the name of Arrieta let alone Rivera, even in a dismissive way.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 25, 2018 16:32:12 GMT -5
This thread has made me realize that we need more reactions to posts than the simple "thumbs up"
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 25, 2018 16:33:37 GMT -5
Fenway Fanatic said "Welcome to Boston."
LOL, grew up a mile and a half from Fenway, I know and appreciate the angst. But sometimes ya just gotta laff
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jul 25, 2018 16:52:04 GMT -5
So as long as Sox Prospects scouting reports are accurate and he is nothing but a back of the rotation guy I don't see what the complaints are. If Beeks had shown anything when he had the chance this year they probably don't trade him he would have been the guy they turned to. But Wright and Erod got hurt and Drew still has not found those 5 miles an hour he lost at the end of last year. They need a starter. So I hope Nathan pitches good for the Sox and trust that Ian who has actually scouted Beeks is correct.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 25, 2018 16:56:43 GMT -5
You have to love this board. Yesterday it was "Gotta replace Pomeranz!", "Pom can't throw another inning for the Sox except maybe out of the pen!" etc. Boom they replace Pomeranz with an off the radar pick up who, no matter what, should be a big improvement on what he showed all season and what do we get? "They'll be terrible in 3 years!" "The farm system is decimated!" (ok that's an exaggeration, but not by much). Newsflash - the Sox are 71 and 32, not 32 and 71. Beeks wsa not penciled in as the #3 starter next season (maaaaaaaybe #5 if he ever translated his stuff from AAA). I've been a Sox fan since I was 5 and my grandpa took me to Fenway for the first time, that was over 65 years ago, and I'm amazed at the pessimism that persists. I admit to having been a victim of it after '67, '75 and especially '86 - but we've won *THREE* World Series since then and we are currently the badasses of baseball in 2018. Not going to worry about how we might suck in 2020 or 2021. You see, what happened was, different people expressed different opinions. Yesterday I think like two people were on the "we need to deal for a starter because Pomeranz stinks" train. Today the reaction to the trade is mixed, but seems to lean positive.
|
|
|