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 jackiebradleyjrjr on Jul 25, 2018 17:07:39 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. Well I think some of the pushback is: 1- the scouting reports might not be accurate; 2- even if they are, a six-year, cost-controlled back of the rotation pitcher isn’t anything to sneeze at. This type of player is valuable and in this age of ridiculous contracts might be a necessity to have on a team; 3- Nathan might not be a particularly good pitcher; 4- in isolation, trading a prospect to improve your team is reasonable and at times justified (we after all have a historically good team right now). But this type of trade has happened before... multiple times. It’s a symptom of a bigger problem: inability to scout, draft, and develop homegrown pitching. It highlights a management that’s so desperate to win now that they get stuck in this perpetual cycle of throwing prospects at rentals or near rentals and when they don’t work out... you throw more prospects to fix the holes you failed to fill earlier and if you fail to fix the problem... throw more prospects at the problem. In fairness, the Sox aren’t the only team like this. But that doesn’t make the pill any easier to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 25, 2018 17:09:39 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. I can't let this pass without comment, yet I have no idea what to say about it. Wow, I guess?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 25, 2018 17:11:10 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. Well I think some of the pushback is: 1- the scouting reports might not be accurate; 2- even if they are, a six-year, cost-controlled back of the rotation pitcher isn’t anything to sneeze at. This type of player is valuable and in this age of ridiculous contracts might be a necessity to have on a team; 3- Nathan might not be a particularly good pitcher; 4- in isolation, trading a prospect to improve your team is reasonable and at times justified (we after all have a historically good team right now). But this type of trade has happened before... multiple times. It’s a symptom of a bigger problem: inability to scout, draft, and develop homegrown pitching. It highlights a management that’s so desperate to win now that they get stuck in this perpetual cycle of throwing prospects at rentals or near rentals and when they don’t work out... you throw more prospects to fix the holes you failed to fill earlier and if you fail to fix the problem... throw more prospects at the problem. In fairness, the Sox aren’t the only team like this. But that doesn’t make the pill any easier to swallow.This strategy has been such a disaster that the Red Sox are going to win like 110 games this season.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2018 17:18:19 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. Fire Dombrowski? Really? The Red Sox are the best team in baseball and have a legit shot at winning the Series. Do you really think you're going to get Eovaldi for some prospect not in the top 20? Do you really think all teams would bid that low to get Eovaldi? And you mention the #6 prospect. What difference does is really make if he's #6? He's #6 because it's a weak farm system. Our #6 might be equal to somebody else's #10 or whatever. It's not what number he is but how good is he going to be, is he replaceable, and what are the needs of the club? I doubt there's any Cy Young awards in his future. Most scouting reports don't consider him a future bullpen ace or anybody that slots in the top 3 of a rotation. At best he could be a decent #4, which is what Eovaldi is right now - which is exactly what they need. The Red Sox have 3 functional starters right now that they can depend on. Johnson has been serviceable as a 4th starter. They don't know if E-Rod and Wright are coming back. They needed more certainty in that rotation and Eovaldi provides it. So what that his ERA is a little over 4? The league ERA is a little over 4. The Red Sox could use an average pitcher if that's what Eovaldi is. There's a lot of value in it. If Beeks was going to be a core member going forward this would be a huge mistake. There's no evidence that's the case. He's most likely a #4/#5/bullpen guy. To say that this could be the next Thornburg deal is really an overstatement. In that deal they gave up a hitter who had had some major league success and a good utility man prospect who might be good enough to play 2b regularly. Here the Sox gave up a lesser pitcher. If you think the Sox were going to give up their 25th best prospect to get a decent starter then you're not even remotely gauging what the trade market is like. If that's your way of doing business you won't acquire anybody and a team that needs another starter in light of their injuries would go to the playoffs against other 100 plus win teams without a reliable 4th starter if E-Rod doesn't come all the way back. That doesn't make sense when they have a team that is very capable of winning the World Series this year. Teams trade minor leaguers to fill in holes. Not all minor leaguers are going to be superstars. Tampa will get value out of Beeks, I believe, but it's possible for teams to get what they want without it being the end of the world. In a way this reminds me of the 3 way deal the Sox swung for Jake Peavy 5 years ago where they gave up Iglesias who is an everyday regular, but he's hardly indispensible. Peavy didn't last long with the Sox, but he stabilized the rotation when it needed stabilizing and the Sox even converted him into a useful reliever in Hembree.
|
|
|
Post by 07redsox on Jul 25, 2018 17:22:38 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. I thought some of the earlier posts were extreme overreactions, but this one may take the cake. You acknowledge that our system is weaker than others by saying that a top 20 may be a top 40 in other systems. In what world do you get players like Eovaldi for players not in a teams top 40 prospects? Yes he was the number 6 prospects, buts that's a large reflection on the system and not Beeks himself. It's perfectly okay to be upset with this trade if you think Beeks is going to be a quality starting pitcher who will have years of team control. I personally was feeling excited to see what he could do in Boston. However, what's the point of ever making any trade involving any prospect if you are going to bring up other players who struggled at first only to become extremely successful players? While not all prospects are created equally, ANY prospects has the chance to become the next big time pitcher/hitter (to very varying degrees/chances). Even if not going to the extremes of comparing someone to Rivera, ANY prospects has a chance of being a quality cost controlled pitcher/hitter. Beeks could very well become that, but he could also struggle in the majors at every chance he has and never truly make it. I would not be surprised if Beeks never does truly make it, mostly because of what prospects are. To say that making this trade is a fireable offense is taking the two realistic views of this trade to the extreme.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jul 25, 2018 17:31:20 GMT -5
Well I think some of the pushback is: 1- the scouting reports might not be accurate; 2- even if they are, a six-year, cost-controlled back of the rotation pitcher isn’t anything to sneeze at. This type of player is valuable and in this age of ridiculous contracts might be a necessity to have on a team; 3- Nathan might not be a particularly good pitcher; 4- in isolation, trading a prospect to improve your team is reasonable and at times justified (we after all have a historically good team right now). But this type of trade has happened before... multiple times. It’s a symptom of a bigger problem: inability to scout, draft, and develop homegrown pitching. It highlights a management that’s so desperate to win now that they get stuck in this perpetual cycle of throwing prospects at rentals or near rentals and when they don’t work out... you throw more prospects to fix the holes you failed to fill earlier and if you fail to fix the problem... throw more prospects at the problem. In fairness, the Sox aren’t the only team like this. But that doesn’t make the pill any easier to swallow.This strategy has been such a disaster that the Red Sox are going to win like 110 games this season. Yes, you’re right: DP, Smith, and Thornburg have been essential to this success. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by ponch73 on Jul 25, 2018 17:44:05 GMT -5
Everything is within the range of possible outcomes, from the Hall of Fame to him deciding to quit baseball tomorrow. It's just the likelihood of that outcome, right? So when you say something is a 2-3 standard deviation outcome, I read it as you saying it is 2-3 standard deviations above his expected 50% outcome. Meaning that there is roughly a 2.5% chance that he's a major league starter with a 4.25 ERA, and a 97.5% chance that he does not. If that's your analysis of him, that's fine. If you think Eovaldi is a lot better than his numbers this year, that's fine too (there are good reasons to think that, even if I'm still a skeptic). A. If you started with a database of all of the AAA starters in their age 24-25 seasons with good peripherals and ERA's, I suspect that you'd find that far fewer than half of them ended up as effective MLB starters. B. If you were then to layer scouting reports of sub-optimal velocity and back-of-the-rotation upsides onto the group in step A, you'd winnow the pool of effective MLB starters even further. C. Finally, if you then looked at the percentage of young prospects traded away by Dave Dombrowski, you'd discount the percentage in part B even further. My guess is that you'd end up with an incredibly-small percentage (<3%) turning into effective MLB starters comparable to Eovaldi this year. I wish I had the time and the data to crunch the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 25, 2018 18:04:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by h11233 on Jul 25, 2018 18:06:46 GMT -5
Yes, you’re right: DP, Smith, and Thornburg have been essential to this success. My mistake. You're cherry picking. Sale and Kimbrel have absolutely been essential. Pom was excellent last season and was essential to the success of that team. Also, injuries make those trades look worse than they were. And if we want to disparage injured players, Espinoza hasn't thrown a pitch in how long? That deal it's looking pretty good in retrospect. In terms of being unable to draft/develop young pitching... The Sox used young pitchers that they developed to make those trades (Espinoza, Kopech, now Beeks)
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jul 25, 2018 18:08:22 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. I was interrupted while reading this thread with what turned out to be a very disconcerting phone call. Fortunately when I returned to my reading, and with no small measure of doom & gloom weighing down my mood, I happened first upon this post. Thank you, bird25! Brought more than a smile to my face -- give 'em hell, kid. Man, I love it!
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 25, 2018 18:23:24 GMT -5
There's perhaps a hidden upside to this deal, assuming David Price can count to five.
He has to prefer starting in the the post-season to pitching out of the pen again, but if either E-Rod or Wright is healthy in October, he's now in a battle with the New Guy for a post-seaso rotation spot.
Here's another memorable Eovaldi start: he holds Houston to 5 4 1 1 0 5 and faces Springer, Bregman, and Altuve (who already has a solo homer off him) for the third time. They all go yard. Just like that, a really impressive start is lousy, but give his career numbers the third time around the order, on top of the general trend for all pitchers, there's no excuse for his facing Bregman after Springer goes yard (except the "we don't even have enough good pitchers on this team to fill out a rotation" excuse that actually existed).
You probably know that he had a 2.2 9 8 8 2 1 line against the Twins two starts ago. You might not know that the sandwich around that is 13 7 1 1 0 17. Yeah, one of those starts is not like the other two. Again, there's no way he's left in to give up 8 runs if he pitches for a team with our pitching depth.
Late tonight: what his pitching line would be if he were handled the way he would with us.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2018 18:32:25 GMT -5
There's perhaps a hidden upside to this deal, assuming David Price can count to five.
He has to prefer starting in the the post-season to pitching out of the pen again, but if either E-Rod or Wright is healthy in October, he's now in a battle with the New Guy for a post-seaso rotation spot.
Here's another memorable Eovaldi start: he holds Houston to 5 4 1 1 0 5 and faces Springer, Bregman, and Altuve (who already has a solo homer off him) for the third time. They all go yard. Just like that, a really impressive start is lousy, but give his career numbers the third time around the order, on top of the general trend for all pitchers, there's no excuse for his facing Bregman after Springer goes yard (except the "we don't even have enough good pitchers on this team to fill out a rotation" excuse that actually existed).
You probably know that he had a 2.2 9 8 8 2 1 line against the Twins two starts ago. You might not know that the sandwich around that is 13 7 1 1 0 17. Yeah, one of those starts is not like the other two. Again, there's no way he's left in to give up 8 runs if he pitches for a team with our pitching depth.
Late tonight: what his pitching line would be if he were handled the way he would with us.
I'm not sure how you can say that when Cora has left Wright in for 10 runs and Porcello in for 8 runs. Both were really slow hooks.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 25, 2018 18:35:56 GMT -5
Yeah, one of those starts is not like the other two. Again, there's no way he's left in to give up 8 runs if he pitches for a team with our pitching depth.
Late tonight: what his pitching line would be if he were handled the way he would with us.
Ahh the counterpoint to the bullpen day. The Rays let their number 3 starter in to roast because they need innings because Sergio Romo is starting games this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 18:44:19 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. I thought some of the earlier posts were extreme overreactions, but this one may take the cake. You acknowledge that our system is weaker than others by saying that a top 20 may be a top 40 in other systems. In what world do you get players like Eovaldi for players not in a teams top 40 prospects? Yes he was the number 6 prospects, buts that's a large reflection on the system and not Beeks himself. It's perfectly okay to be upset with this trade if you think Beeks is going to be a quality starting pitcher who will have years of team control. I personally was feeling excited to see what he could do in Boston. However, what's the point of ever making any trade involving any prospect if you are going to bring up other players who struggled at first only to become extremely successful players? While not all prospects are created equally, ANY prospects has the chance to become the next big time pitcher/hitter (to very varying degrees/chances). Even if not going to the extremes of comparing someone to Rivera, ANY prospects has a chance of being a quality cost controlled pitcher/hitter. Beeks could very well become that, but he could also struggle in the majors at every chance he has and never truly make it. I would not be surprised if Beeks never does truly make it, mostly because of what prospects are. To say that making this trade is a fireable offense is taking the two realistic views of this trade to the extreme. Eovaldi is a mediocre MLB pitcher. Now of course, he's in the MLB, and that means he is one of the best in the world, but for the MLB, he is mediocre. If you're going to trade Beeks for a Rays starting pitcher, it at least has to be Archer, and even that I'm not so sure about.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 25, 2018 18:48:32 GMT -5
This thread is a disaster.
I'd trade a AAAA guy like Beeks all day every day to bolster the rotation for the playoffs.
We are trying to win a World Series. I'd give up the Jalen Beeks' of the World for rentals in the blink of an eye. Not even a question.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 25, 2018 18:48:41 GMT -5
I thought some of the earlier posts were extreme overreactions, but this one may take the cake. You acknowledge that our system is weaker than others by saying that a top 20 may be a top 40 in other systems. In what world do you get players like Eovaldi for players not in a teams top 40 prospects? Yes he was the number 6 prospects, buts that's a large reflection on the system and not Beeks himself. It's perfectly okay to be upset with this trade if you think Beeks is going to be a quality starting pitcher who will have years of team control. I personally was feeling excited to see what he could do in Boston. However, what's the point of ever making any trade involving any prospect if you are going to bring up other players who struggled at first only to become extremely successful players? While not all prospects are created equally, ANY prospects has the chance to become the next big time pitcher/hitter (to very varying degrees/chances). Even if not going to the extremes of comparing someone to Rivera, ANY prospects has a chance of being a quality cost controlled pitcher/hitter. Beeks could very well become that, but he could also struggle in the majors at every chance he has and never truly make it. I would not be surprised if Beeks never does truly make it, mostly because of what prospects are. To say that making this trade is a fireable offense is taking the two realistic views of this trade to the extreme. Eovaldi is a mediocre MLB pitcher. Now of course, he's in the MLB, and that means he is one of the best in the world, but for the MLB, he is mediocre. If you're going to trade Beeks for a Rays starting pitcher, it at least has to be Archer, and even that I'm not so sure about. I think you might have a misconception of what Beeks is...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 18:50:58 GMT -5
Eovaldi is a mediocre MLB pitcher. Now of course, he's in the MLB, and that means he is one of the best in the world, but for the MLB, he is mediocre. If you're going to trade Beeks for a Rays starting pitcher, it at least has to be Archer, and even that I'm not so sure about. I think you might have a misconception of what Beeks is... I think he could be a 3rd or 4th starter, or a solid long reliever.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 25, 2018 18:54:44 GMT -5
I think you might have a misconception of what Beeks is... I think he could be a 3rd or 4th starter, or a solid long reliever. Why would the Rays give up Chris Archer for a "solid" long reliever? It's absurd. Hector Velazquez is a solid long reliever. Brian Johnson is a solid long reliever. You really think they are going to return much. Yes on the small chance Jalen Beeks becomes a bonifide 200 IP, 3.50 ERA, 3rd starter this trade looks like poor asset management (if you don't win the WS). But I think most here agree Jalen Beeks upside was 5th starter, bullpen guy. Not exactly someone you lose sleep about trading.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 25, 2018 19:17:41 GMT -5
Yes, you’re right: DP, Smith, and Thornburg have been essential to this success. My mistake. You're cherry picking. Sale and Kimbrel have absolutely been essential. Pom was excellent last season and was essential to the success of that team. Also, injuries make those trades look worse than they were. And if we want to disparage injured players, Espinoza hasn't thrown a pitch in how long? That deal it's looking pretty good in retrospect. In terms of being unable to draft/develop young pitching... The Sox used young pitchers that they developed to make those trades (Espinoza, Kopech, now Beeks) Here’s the thing, it doesn’t matter if Dombrowski’s philosophy is good or not. I didn’t like any of his trades when he made them. Doesn’t matter. The damage to 2020 and beyond is already done. The Sale trade will not be reversed. Holding onto Jalen Beeks is not going to be the thing that saves this team from (maybe) needing to rebuild in a few years. The best thing they can do now is maximize their chances for the window that they do have, and this trade does that.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 25, 2018 19:40:14 GMT -5
This thread is a tire fire
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2018 19:54:59 GMT -5
I thought some of the earlier posts were extreme overreactions, but this one may take the cake. You acknowledge that our system is weaker than others by saying that a top 20 may be a top 40 in other systems. In what world do you get players like Eovaldi for players not in a teams top 40 prospects? Yes he was the number 6 prospects, buts that's a large reflection on the system and not Beeks himself. It's perfectly okay to be upset with this trade if you think Beeks is going to be a quality starting pitcher who will have years of team control. I personally was feeling excited to see what he could do in Boston. However, what's the point of ever making any trade involving any prospect if you are going to bring up other players who struggled at first only to become extremely successful players? While not all prospects are created equally, ANY prospects has the chance to become the next big time pitcher/hitter (to very varying degrees/chances). Even if not going to the extremes of comparing someone to Rivera, ANY prospects has a chance of being a quality cost controlled pitcher/hitter. Beeks could very well become that, but he could also struggle in the majors at every chance he has and never truly make it. I would not be surprised if Beeks never does truly make it, mostly because of what prospects are. To say that making this trade is a fireable offense is taking the two realistic views of this trade to the extreme. Eovaldi is a mediocre MLB pitcher. Now of course, he's in the MLB, and that means he is one of the best in the world, but for the MLB, he is mediocre. If you're going to trade Beeks for a Rays starting pitcher, it at least has to be Archer, and even that I'm not so sure about. This is one of the most skull imploding posts I've read. The Rays are going to trade their best pitcher for a back end starter/reliever? It's amazing. You really do seem to think that all minor league prospects are superstars waiting to happen. I guess you wouldn't have traded prospect Nate Eovaldi for in his prime Pedro if that had been a possibility. Jalen Beeks can be a useful player but he's hardly the HOFer you make him out to be.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2018 19:58:28 GMT -5
I read an article in WEEI.com about Dombrowski saying that he prioritized starting pitching over relief pitching. This makes me wonder - why did he make it sound like an either/or proposition? Couldn't have getting Britton and Eovald been mutually exclusive?
If anybody reads that article let me know if I'm reading more into this but I can't help but wonder if Beeks would have been part of the trade package to Baltimore for Britton but he opted to use him to get Eovaldi because starting pitching became the priority.
At least that's how I read it (between the lines) from Dombrowski's quotes. Am I overthinking this or reading more into this than I should have?
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jul 25, 2018 20:00:43 GMT -5
I think you might have a misconception of what Beeks is... I think he could be a 3rd or 4th starter, or a solid long reliever.Right. And I'd say one of the advantages of a large payroll team is to not worry about paying for whichever one of those you want, whenever you want. No need to keep them in inventory, you can always get another on short notice (kind of like what they're doing now). That's not to say it's not better to keep your own supply handy and in reserve, but it's certainly shouldn't be anything to fret about if your supply has run down. Go to the store and buy some more. There's always more to be had. Last minute buying costs a little more, but the Red Sox can easily afford it. Now getting young stars, that's the trick. Those stores aren't always open, and the prices are crazy high. Best grow your own.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2018 20:02:23 GMT -5
I think you might have a misconception of what Beeks is... I think he could be a 3rd or 4th starter, or a solid long reliever. You have to be just about the only one who thinks he can be a #3 starter. And if he's a 4th starter or solid long reliever, he's not that valuable. I mean that's Brian Johnson or Hector Velazquez, not Rick Porcello. There's a huge difference in value. It's a lot easier to find and replace a long reliever or #4/#5 starter than a #3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 20:27:21 GMT -5
Eovaldi is a mediocre MLB pitcher. Now of course, he's in the MLB, and that means he is one of the best in the world, but for the MLB, he is mediocre. If you're going to trade Beeks for a Rays starting pitcher, it at least has to be Archer, and even that I'm not so sure about. This is one of the most skull imploding posts I've read. The Rays are going to trade their best pitcher for a back end starter/reliever? It's amazing. You really do seem to think that all minor league prospects are superstars waiting to happen. I guess you wouldn't have traded prospect Nate Eovaldi for in his prime Pedro if that had been a possibility. Jalen Beeks can be a useful player but he's hardly the HOFer you make him out to be. I never said he was a HOFer. I really think that in general teams make the prices too high for rentals. So it likely wouldn't happen, but that's the cost they really should be.
|
|
|