cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,645
|
Post by cdj on Jul 30, 2024 13:25:33 GMT -5
Some wild feel for spin
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jul 30, 2024 13:25:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 30, 2024 13:26:19 GMT -5
I would have preferred they trade from their 40-man eligible pool of players (swap with Luis Guerrero?), but understand that some teams might prefer lower level guys who aren't 40-man eligible so perhaps was not an option. Still though, 19-year-olds that touch 99+ with a plus secondary pitch don't grow on trees. if it was one of the borderline 40 man RP types I’d be totally on board
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,844
|
Post by shagworthy on Jul 30, 2024 13:26:48 GMT -5
Our bullpen ERA is almost 7 in July - worst in MLB - a veteran low/mid lev RHP can’t help?? Look at what that mid level reliever Jason Adam cost the Padres a couple days ago. It was astronomicaly high. It wasn't needle mover one way or the other, we gave up an A ball pitcher for a MLB pitcher. One for one I'd call that a win. Considering some of the prospect capital being spent during this deadline, it's a meh. Marginally improved the pen, didn't loose too much to do it.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,645
|
Post by cdj on Jul 30, 2024 13:27:25 GMT -5
I saw people saying his control isn’t great. How bad are his BB numbers? There’s nothing I hate more than relievers who can’t throw strikes so that’s a bit concerning for me He’s a 5 BB/9 guy but there are effective relievers out there that can get by with that.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywaterinla on Jul 30, 2024 13:27:36 GMT -5
I would have preferred they trade from their 40-man eligible pool of players (swap with Luis Guerrero?), but understand that some teams might prefer lower level guys who aren't 40-man eligible so perhaps was not an option. Still though, 19-year-olds that touch 99+ with a plus secondary pitch don't grow on trees. if it was one of the borderline 40 man RP types I’d be totally on board Same but there’s virtually no viable candidates in that category that aren’t Rule 5 this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 30, 2024 13:27:47 GMT -5
Also very minor detail but why DFA Walter instead of 60 day DLing him?
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jul 30, 2024 13:28:07 GMT -5
Our bullpen ERA is almost 7 in July - worst in MLB - a veteran low/mid lev RHP can’t help?? By the same token, I would have been totally fine with them just counting on regression and the injured guys coming back; they shouldn't have a 7 ERA the rest of the season with or without Sims.
I'm also not buying peripherals- or stuff- or Bailey-based arguments about Sims. He's a 30 year old reliever with a long track record; he is what he is - which, according to all the projections, is a replacement-level reliever.
Even if we ignore his updated pitch mix, I have to be a stickler - his track record says he's a comfortably above replacement-level reliever. Projections are fair enough as a data point, but I just want to make sure we have the facts straight.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywaterinla on Jul 30, 2024 13:29:18 GMT -5
Also very minor detail but why DFA Walter instead of 60 day DLing him? I’m pretty sure he was already on the 60 day IL? Either way, I think it’s evident that Craig and Co aren’t very high on him.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,645
|
Post by cdj on Jul 30, 2024 13:30:04 GMT -5
Another thing- this is a guy Boddy has a lot of familiarity with
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 30, 2024 13:30:39 GMT -5
Also very minor detail but why DFA Walter instead of 60 day DLing him? I’m pretty sure he was already on the 60 day IL? Either way, I think it’s evident that Craig and Co aren’t very high on him. he was on the minor league one which meant he still counted against the MLB 40. They could’ve put him on the MLB 60 day
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 30, 2024 13:33:11 GMT -5
If your goal as a fan is for your team to “win” every trade, I can see why you would hate this.
If you are a little more realistic and your goal is to improve the Red Sox while mitigating future risk… it’s fine? I can at the very least see what they saw in him.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Jul 30, 2024 13:33:52 GMT -5
Our bullpen ERA is almost 7 in July - worst in MLB - a veteran low/mid lev RHP can’t help?? By the same token, I would have been totally fine with them just counting on regression and the injured guys coming back; they shouldn't have a 7 ERA the rest of the season with or without Sims.
I'm also not buying peripherals- or stuff- or Bailey-based arguments about Sims. He's a 30 year old reliever with a long track record; he is what he is - which, according to all the projections, is a replacement-level reliever.
Career 99 ERA-, 100 FIP-. Wasn’t that long ago that he struck out 39% of batters he faced. Elite stuff according to the pitch models. He’s definitely got a better track record than “replacement level” and I don’t think it’s crazy that a few tweaks can help him find some stability. That’s kind of how baseball works these days.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Jul 30, 2024 13:34:02 GMT -5
Really don’t bat an eye at giving up a 19 year old for a reliever that we need now
This helps without a gut punch price
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Jul 30, 2024 13:34:10 GMT -5
Improvement on Campbell, Horn, Wingenter. Decent roll of the dice. See if he can get hot and be an asset down the stretch.
|
|
|
Post by bcsox on Jul 30, 2024 13:34:31 GMT -5
Not on topic here but as it pertains to the bullpen, what is the deal with Isiah Campbell, I know he was injured, but is he not in their plans this year?
|
|
|
Post by nonothing on Jul 30, 2024 13:36:36 GMT -5
Sims is fine I think he can help a little bit but it also seems like he should've been available for basically free and they traded one of the better pitching prospects in the org for him. I don't think they think he was one of the best. I think they think he had helium and a shot. But they have others. I love that nobody is concerned they tossed Walter from the roster, but everyone concerned about losing Portes.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 30, 2024 13:36:59 GMT -5
By the same token, I would have been totally fine with them just counting on regression and the injured guys coming back; they shouldn't have a 7 ERA the rest of the season with or without Sims.
I'm also not buying peripherals- or stuff- or Bailey-based arguments about Sims. He's a 30 year old reliever with a long track record; he is what he is - which, according to all the projections, is a replacement-level reliever.
Even if we ignore his updated pitch mix, I have to be a stickler - his track record says he's a comfortably above replacement-level reliever. Projections are fair enough as a data point, but I just want to make sure we have the facts straight. Well that's why I said the thing I said rather than some other thing I didn't say.
Maybe there's something to the new pitch mix. But whenever I see "older and erstwhile-mediocre pitcher X added Y and now he's got a stat line like Greg Maddux" it always seems like they end up returning to their level in the long run. E.g., Pivetta since last season. Maybe it's that they buy themselves a window where other teams aren't prepared for the new pitch mix (e.g., the Red Sox whole pitching staff the first few weeks of this season) but then the league inevitably adjusts. And maybe that window stays open for Sims long enough to help the Sox; that's possible. But in this sort of situation I start from a STRONG assumption that the guy is not suddenly a totally different sort of pitcher than his track record indicates.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jul 30, 2024 13:42:16 GMT -5
I’m pretty sure he was already on the 60 day IL? Either way, I think it’s evident that Craig and Co aren’t very high on him. he was on the minor league one which meant he still counted against the MLB 40. They could’ve put him on the MLB 60 day He gets a major league salary on the 60 day IL and there’s prob no world where he pitches in the majors again before an offseason DFA His body broke down by the time he was called up, but he was absolutely a legit major league player when he was in A+/AA imo. A good lesson in you can never rush a pitcher too fast once you think they can hang.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jul 30, 2024 13:47:26 GMT -5
Also very minor detail but why DFA Walter instead of 60 day DLing him? Walter was still on the 40-man because he was on the milb I.L. Sox or any claiming team would have to put him on the MLB 60-day ... to avoid counting him toward 40 player limit. That would move Walter to minimum MLB salary of 120k per month.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Jul 30, 2024 13:48:33 GMT -5
Even if we ignore his updated pitch mix, I have to be a stickler - his track record says he's a comfortably above replacement-level reliever. Projections are fair enough as a data point, but I just want to make sure we have the facts straight. Well that's why I said the thing I said rather than some other thing I didn't say.
Maybe there's something to the new pitch mix. But whenever I see "older and erstwhile-mediocre pitcher X added Y and now he's got a stat line like Greg Maddux" it always seems like they end up returning to their level in the long run. E.g., Pivetta since last season. Maybe it's that they buy themselves a window where other teams aren't prepared for the new pitch mix (e.g., the Red Sox whole pitching staff the first few weeks of this season) but then the league inevitably adjusts. And maybe that window stays open for Sims long enough to help the Sox; that's possible. But in this sort of situation I start from a STRONG assumption that the guy is not suddenly a totally different sort of pitcher than his track record indicates.
I think the bigger thing is the projection systems see “high walk rate, low ground ball rate, pitches in GAB” and determine “this guy will give up a lot of home runs.” That is understandable, but he’s also got a track record of making it work, plus he’s going to one of the more home-run-averse parks. It’s pretty easy to see why they wanted him, he could easily lock in for two months and give them a reliable 7th inning guy. Worst case scenario he’s no worse than Bailey Horn or a gassed Greg Weissert. Edit: Nick Pivetta also has a 3.5 xERA and a top-10 K-BB% in all of baseball. I don’t think he’s been appreciably different from his second half run beyond more trouble with the home run ball.
|
|
|
Post by rickasadoorian on Jul 30, 2024 13:53:55 GMT -5
Ovis Portes is the next Darwinzon Hernandez or Wikelman Gonzalez. People complaining about Sims BB rate in the Majors must be completely ignoring Portes struggles to date.
Finding an MiLB Pitcher who succceed with a 5+ (6 in Portes's case) + BB/9 in A ball is about impossible. In fact, I have been paying close attention to the Redsox farm since 1995. Since then, the Redsox haven't had a single pitcher go on to have any type of successw ho had a 5+ BB/9 in A ball. This is going all the way back to the Michigan Battle Cats. It includes the Augusta GreenJackets.
I guess the one saving grace for him is it's only 21.0 ip. Then again, there have been no successfull pitchers out of the Redsox Farm system who had a BB/9 of 5+ with over 20 ips since at least 1995. So yeah. Real big loss. Not. Maybe he's the one exception in 30 years.
edit: Luis Guerrero might have a chance to make the MLB, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 30, 2024 13:56:26 GMT -5
Well that's why I said the thing I said rather than some other thing I didn't say.
Maybe there's something to the new pitch mix. But whenever I see "older and erstwhile-mediocre pitcher X added Y and now he's got a stat line like Greg Maddux" it always seems like they end up returning to their level in the long run. E.g., Pivetta since last season. Maybe it's that they buy themselves a window where other teams aren't prepared for the new pitch mix (e.g., the Red Sox whole pitching staff the first few weeks of this season) but then the league inevitably adjusts. And maybe that window stays open for Sims long enough to help the Sox; that's possible. But in this sort of situation I start from a STRONG assumption that the guy is not suddenly a totally different sort of pitcher than his track record indicates.
I think the bigger thing is the projection systems see “high walk rate, low ground ball rate, pitches in GAB” and determine “this guy will give up a lot of home runs.” That is understandable, but he’s also got a track record of making it work, plus he’s going to one of the more home-run-averse parks. It’s pretty easy to see why they wanted him, he could easily lock in for two months and give them a reliable 7th inning guy. Worst case scenario he’s no worse than Bailey Horn or a gassed Greg Weissert. The worst case scenario is that Portes is good. Or, at least, has higher trade value in a year or two than he does now.
Actually, given the wording of Portes' scouting report...
...one of the better-case scenarios is that they gave up a long-term cost-controlled reliever with upside for two months' of a middling middle reliever.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jul 30, 2024 13:57:57 GMT -5
Sounds like the Reds got hosed
Bonus points: Walter is not a milb free agent until Oct '25. So he rides for 14 months without necessarily taking up a roster spot.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 30, 2024 13:58:22 GMT -5
I think the bigger thing is the projection systems see “high walk rate, low ground ball rate, pitches in GAB” and determine “this guy will give up a lot of home runs.” That is understandable, but he’s also got a track record of making it work, plus he’s going to one of the more home-run-averse parks. It’s pretty easy to see why they wanted him, he could easily lock in for two months and give them a reliable 7th inning guy. Worst case scenario he’s no worse than Bailey Horn or a gassed Greg Weissert. The worst case scenario is that Portes is good. Or, at least, has higher trade value in a year or two than he does now.
Actually, given the wording of Portes' scouting report...
...one of the better-case scenarios is that they gave up a long-term cost-controlled reliever with upside for two months' of a middling middle reliever.
I think you are vastly underestimating how low the floor still is, there.
|
|