Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

Beckett To The 15 Day DL


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
85 replies to this topic

#1 Yazdog8

  • 3740 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:27 PM

Per multiple reports on Twitter, Beckett has been scratched on Sunday due to shoulder inflammation. Morales will start.

#2 trekfan55


  • SoSH Member


  • 5231 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:29 PM

It's all over twitter.

Here

Here

And several others.

So now they are 2 pitchers down and absolutely no depth at all in that area.

Is there some record the Sox are trying to break?

Edit: Did like 3 refreshes before I posted this and still got beaten.

Edited by trekfan55, 15 June 2012 - 04:30 PM.


#3 BannedbyNYYFans.com

  • 3034 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:31 PM

Tee time set for early Monday?

#4 AimingForYoko


  • SoSH Member


  • 12793 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:32 PM

We should turn this into a game. Up next, Middlebrooks with yellow fever.

No but this sucks and I hope it's nothing serious. And that Franklin won't be terrible.

#5 genivive

  • 791 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:33 PM

Does Daniel come back up?

#6 trekfan55


  • SoSH Member


  • 5231 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:34 PM

Not yet.

Valentine said no DL for Beckett for now. He will be sent out for tests.


Speier

#7 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 19150 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:35 PM

Merging two Beckett threads...

#8 judyb

  • 3080 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:18 PM

They just had a day off Thursday and have another Monday, Buchholz could start on regular rest Sunday and the other starters would still get an extra day between starts. So, why are they starting Morales instead?

#9 Nomar813


  • SoSH Member


  • 5802 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:45 PM

Starting pitching was the one area where they had been pretty lucky healthwise and hopefully this is just a one start absence. So far, they've had only one start by someone outside of their top six starters. Without stretching out someone like Tazawa or Mortensen, the starting depth is pretty thin at AAA. Morales came up through the ranks as a starter and had 15 MLB starts with Colorado. He's been impressive in his handful of extended outings this year.

Edited by Nomar813, 15 June 2012 - 05:46 PM.


#10 mauidano


  • Mai Tais for everyone!


  • 11261 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:59 PM

They just had a day off Thursday and have another Monday, Buchholz could start on regular rest Sunday and the other starters would still get an extra day between starts. So, why are they starting Morales instead?

As good as Clay has been, as bad as we need shutdown pitching, as cold as the bats are, ya'd think that would work. But no-o-ooooo!

#11 xjack


  • Futbol Crazed


  • 5149 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:25 PM

It must be serious if the Sox aren't lying about it and calling Beckett's ongoing shoulder woes a stiff neck or an oblique or a back strain. The guy had a compromised shoulder when the Sox traded for him, the Sox knew it about from day 1, and yet they still signed him to an extension. They've got nobody to blame but themselves.

#12 Seels

  • 1476 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:43 PM

I never understood extending Beckett. Guy averaged a 108 era+ for 29 starts for his Boston time prior to the extension. His contract isn't Lackey bad, but man, that 18 mil a year could really be better spent

#13 Rudy's Curve

  • 1096 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 10:15 PM

I never understood extending Beckett. Guy averaged a 108 era+ for 29 starts for his Boston time prior to the extension. His contract isn't Lackey bad, but man, that 18 mil a year could really be better spent


They extended him after his first start of 2010, so he averaged 30.5 starts with a 116 ERA+ in his Red Sox career prior to that. Effective pitching in the AL East is very tough to find, and he had proven he could do it. There weren't any SP prospects that were close to the big leagues, and they only extended him through his age 33-34 season. It hasn't worked out for the most part, but I'd do it again.

#14 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17528 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 12:33 AM

It must be serious if the Sox aren't lying about it and calling Beckett's ongoing shoulder woes a stiff neck or an oblique or a back strain. The guy had a compromised shoulder when the Sox traded for him, the Sox knew it about from day 1, and yet they still signed him to an extension. They've got nobody to blame but themselves.


Yea because that shoulder has been holding him back since 2007.

#15 Pearl Wilson


  • SoSH Member


  • 5727 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:43 AM

Oh it goes back way before that.

Alex Speier does an excellent job putting Beckett's shoulder issues into historical perspective beginning with the diagnosis of a torn labrum when he was 19. He was told at that time he needed surgery. Dr. Andrews differed and has been Beckett's shoulder guy ever since, so another visit may be expected.

#16 StuckOnYouk

  • 1780 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 08:20 AM

Just get him healthy so we can trade him by 9/1

By the way, just for argument's sake if he can't be traded without his consent, what about if he's put on waivers on 8/1 and a team claims him and the Sox just let him go? I assume Beckett gets a say in that doesn't he?

Edited by StuckOnYouk, 16 June 2012 - 08:22 AM.


#17 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18406 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 11:08 AM

Why would you put him on waivers? Why are people assuming this means the end of his effective days and needs to be removed from the roster? He's been consistently very good when you look at his FIP and xFIP. His xFIP has dipped slightly the last season and a half, but he's still one of the most reliable pitchers on the staff when you look at his peripherals.

Year   FIP  xFIP  K/9   BB/9

2007: 3.08  3:31  8.70  1.79

2008: 3.24  3.19  8.88  1.76

2009: 3.63  3.30  8.43  2.33

2010: 4.54  3.86  8.18  3.17

2011: 3.57  3.58  8.15  2.42

2012: 3.78  3.88  6.43  1.95

The k/9 are down this year, but he's still not walking anyone and it's early enough in the season that it could certainly rebound by the end of the season. And it's really the only potential sign of any kind of serious decline. He's not a top 10 pitcher in the league any more, but he's still very good. And until Buchholz proves he can maintain his recent level of play over the long haul, Beckett is still the best starting pitcher on the team.

#18 YTF

  • 3401 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 11:44 AM

As good as Clay has been, as bad as we need shutdown pitching, as cold as the bats are, ya'd think that would work. But no-o-ooooo!


Willing to bet that if the Sox lose today, Buchholz starts on Sunday. Problem is, they have to lose for this to become true and I don't want that to happen.

#19 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4237 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 11:46 AM

Why would you put him on waivers?

Well, in August, isn't more or less every player put on waivers at some point, even if the team has no intention of trading particular players? It's part subterfuge to maybe sneak someone else through unclaimed and part testing the market to see what kind of value a player might hold for off-season moves. I can certainly see the Red Sox exposing Beckett to revocable waivers like anyone else. But I doubt they'd just let him go if he was claimed, because as you point out, he's still a very very good pitcher. Since the start of last season, he has an ERA of 3.25 and a WHIP of 1.06 in 271 innings. That's not the kind of pitcher you just give away no matter who he is, how much he's paid, or how much of an asshole people think he is.

#20 genivive

  • 791 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:11 PM

Well, in August, isn't more or less every player put on waivers at some point, even if the team has no intention of trading particular players? It's part subterfuge to maybe sneak someone else through unclaimed and part testing the market to see what kind of value a player might hold for off-season moves. I can certainly see the Red Sox exposing Beckett to revocable waivers like anyone else. But I doubt they'd just let him go if he was claimed, because as you point out, he's still a very very good pitcher. Since the start of last season, he has an ERA of 3.25 and a WHIP of 1.06 in 271 innings. That's not the kind of pitcher you just give away no matter who he is, how much he's paid, or how much of an asshole people think he is.

Then why would you even consider trading him?

#21 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17528 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:34 PM

Because when the Red Sox want to trade players, teams just shower them with Blue Chip Prospects. D'Uh!

#22 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4237 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:26 PM

Then why would you even consider trading him?

Personally, I wouldn't. That's my point.

Sometimes, it seems like the sentiment is if the guy isn't Pedro in his prime, he's a bum that they need to run out of town. Beckett is no Pedro, but he's still a damn good pitcher and the Red Sox aren't going anywhere if he's hurt or if they dump him for 20 cents on the dollar.

#23 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4237 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:39 PM

Cafardo tweets that Beckett is headed to the DL and Clayton Mortensen is being called up to replace him.

#24 Rudy's Curve

  • 1096 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:05 PM

Why not start Buchholz? He'd be on normal rest and Morales is likely only going to go five in a best case scenario. With the off days Thursday and Monday, they don't need a fifth starter until Saturday which coincides with Cook's starts.

Edited by Rudy's Curve, 16 June 2012 - 03:06 PM.


#25 absintheofmalaise


  • too many flowers


  • 10034 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:52 PM

Per Sean McAdam on Twitter

Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam

Bobbv V said original plan was to start Buchholz on regular rest in place of Beckett, but Buchholz said he needed more recovery time.

#26 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4237 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:53 PM

Why not start Buchholz? He'd be on normal rest and Morales is likely only going to go five in a best case scenario. With the off days Thursday and Monday, they don't need a fifth starter until Saturday which coincides with Cook's starts.

Valentine answers, per McAdam: "Bobby V said original plan was to start Buchholz on regular rest in place of Beckett, but Buchholz said he needed more recovery time."

Makes sense after that complete game two starts ago.

#27 mauidano


  • Mai Tais for everyone!


  • 11261 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:08 PM

Per Sean McAdam on Twitter

Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam

Bobbv V said original plan was to start Buchholz on regular rest in place of Beckett, but Buchholz said he needed more recovery time.

If that's what Clay says, gotta go with it. he's thrown a lot of pitches lately and pitched great. If we can't take the next two games with Lester and Morales at least keeping us in the game...well, the problems run deeper.

#28 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 23291 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:00 PM

AP: Beckett also has had a thumb issue all season which Valentine said the club may think about "dealing with" while he’s on the DL.

#29 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 25306 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:10 PM

AP: Beckett also has had a thumb issue all season which Valentine said the club may think about "dealing with" while he’s on the DL.


What the fuck does that mean?

If he's out for anything resembling an extended period, we're just fucked.

#30 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4237 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:16 PM

What the fuck does that mean?

If he's out for anything resembling an extended period, we're just fucked.


Reports are that "dealing with it" involves a cortisone shot which they were planning to give him around the all star break anyway.

ProJo blog:

While Beckett is on the disabled list for the next two weeks, he could get an injection in his thumb -- an injection that otherwise might have waited until the All-Star break.



#31 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 19150 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 08:34 PM

Reports are that "dealing with it" involves a cortisone shot which they were planning to give him around the all star break anyway.

ProJo blog:


The ongoing thumb epidemic claims another victim.

#32 The Long Tater

  • 1820 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:26 PM

The awesome just continues

#33 DaveRoberts'Shoes


  • Aaron Burr


  • 2494 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:29 PM

The ongoing thumb epidemic claims another victim.


Fucking hands.

#34 Seels

  • 1476 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:33 PM

Fucking hands.

How do you injure a thumb doing that?

#35 NorthernSoxFan

  • 39 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 12:04 AM

Nothing suprises me with this team. Getting caught in Vancouver rain would send at least one player to the DL. Come to think of it, this could occur in Seattle in a couple of weeks. As tough as it is to like most of the personalities on the pitching staff, losing Beckett for an extended period would not be good. Buchholz not wanting to start on Sunday initially irritated me. A gamer would suck it up and try to get it done. At the same time, it would appear no one in the organization has a clue about talking to the media. Did it need to be said that Buchholz declined the start? Can someone tell Beckett that it might be a good idea to say something, no matter how trivial? How about coaching Valentine to get through a press conference without sounding clueless?

On a side note, for those going to Seattle, there is a gathering for Sox fans prior to the Saturday game. Should be at the Showbox Theatre again, which is a couple of blocks south of Safeco. We went last year- about 500 or more great Sox fans, with a bunch of prizes you can buy tickets for- all proceeds last year went to the Jimmy Fund. Neat to see Red Sox Nation in the Pacific Northwest.

#36 HriniakPosterChild

  • 2715 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 12:41 AM

Can someone tell Beckett that it might be a good idea to say something, no matter how trivial?


Yeah, that went really well last time he opened his mouth: “I spend my off days the way I want to spend them,” he said. “My off day is my off day.”

#37 mauidano


  • Mai Tais for everyone!


  • 11261 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 03:45 AM

I got a feeling that JB is done with the media. Didn't talk after his last two starts either. Smart money says he won't be talking to anyone about this. Can't seem him being "warm and fuzzy".

#38 Toe Nash

  • 2746 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 07:06 AM

Buchholz not wanting to start on Sunday initially irritated me. A gamer would suck it up and try to get it done. At the same time, it would appear no one in the organization has a clue about talking to the media. Did it need to be said that Buchholz declined the start?

With all the injuries on the team, and Buchholz finally pitching well it doesn't bother me in the slightest that he said he needed some extra rest. In fact it's preferable than if he had sucked it up, pitched while kinda sore, and then hurt himself seriously, or simply not pitched well.

Clay didn't pitch or do much of anything the second half of last year and probably doesn't have the strength back that you'd need to be a "horse." He just threw 125 and 103 pitches. It makes perfect sense that he needs a couple extra days of rest.

As for telling the media, it seems like Bobby gave a reasonable answer to a question about Buchholz. Plenty of teams have guys make spot starts when their starts get a sore back or groin pull or whatever. Not everything has to be a big mess.

The only thing worth questioning here is the wisdom of letting Clay pitch 125 pitches in a 7-0 game.

#39 joe dokes

  • 2471 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 08:06 AM

The only thing worth questioning here is the wisdom of letting Clay pitch 125 pitches in a 7-0 game.


I suspect that BV did not know then that he wouldn't be able to use the rare 2-days-off-in 5 to his and his pitchers' advantage. If he had known that Beckett was not going to able to pitch Sunday, things would have been done differently.

#40 Eddie Jurak


  • Go Leafs Go


  • 8460 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 08:49 AM

I imagine Mortenson will be slated to come in after Morales today. Between the two of them we may get a full start.

#41 StuckOnYouk

  • 1780 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 08:51 AM

Why would you put him on waivers? Why are people assuming this means the end of his effective days and needs to be removed from the roster? He's been consistently very good when you look at his FIP and xFIP. His xFIP has dipped slightly the last season and a half, but he's still one of the most reliable pitchers on the staff when you look at his peripherals.

Year   FIP  xFIP  K/9   BB/9

2007: 3.08  3:31  8.70  1.79

2008: 3.24  3.19  8.88  1.76

2009: 3.63  3.30  8.43  2.33

2010: 4.54  3.86  8.18  3.17

2011: 3.57  3.58  8.15  2.42

2012: 3.78  3.88  6.43  1.95

The k/9 are down this year, but he's still not walking anyone and it's early enough in the season that it could certainly rebound by the end of the season. And it's really the only potential sign of any kind of serious decline. He's not a top 10 pitcher in the league any more, but he's still very good. And until Buchholz proves he can maintain his recent level of play over the long haul, Beckett is still the best starting pitcher on the team.

Do you think Becketts' going to be worth 16 million in 2013 and 2014? I'd be ecstatic if the Sox were able to shake free of the last two years of his contract. We aren't winning a world series this year and if we do win one in the '13 and '14, I'm confident Beckett wouldn't be the driving force behind that.
Now if the team would just take that 16m per year and eat it and not re-invest it in the team, that's a different story.
But like I questioned, is a team able to do that if a player has a no-trade? Because basically you're dumping someone to any team that wants him, taking away his right to pick where he wants to go. I can't imagine that's do-able, but hell. Maybe Beckett's just tired of Boston so much he'd go anywhere. Esp after September and Golf-gate and now not talking to the media.

#42 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18406 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 10:33 AM

Beckett was worth 19.2 million last year according to fangraphs, so yeah, I think he can be worth it. What's more important is that he has a good chance to be worth well more than what they've paid him since he arrived in Boston. He's been a very good investment, IMO and if this team wants to reset and contend in two years, then Beckett is going to have to be a part of that. Obviously, all of that is going to depend on what is wrong with his shoulder right now. If he need surgery, it all goes out the window, but if it's just inflammation I feel pretty confident that he can be worth his contract for the last two years and end up being a great investment overall.

And he doesn't have to be the ace of the staff to be worth keeping around. Think Curt Schilling in 2007. Not the ace of the staff, but still very good and essential to winning that title.

#43 StuckOnYouk

  • 1780 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 01:26 PM

Beckett was worth 19.2 million last year according to fangraphs, so yeah, I think he can be worth it. What's more important is that he has a good chance to be worth well more than what they've paid him since he arrived in Boston. He's been a very good investment, IMO and if this team wants to reset and contend in two years, then Beckett is going to have to be a part of that. Obviously, all of that is going to depend on what is wrong with his shoulder right now. If he need surgery, it all goes out the window, but if it's just inflammation I feel pretty confident that he can be worth his contract for the last two years and end up being a great investment overall.

And he doesn't have to be the ace of the staff to be worth keeping around. Think Curt Schilling in 2007. Not the ace of the staff, but still very good and essential to winning that title.

what he's worth in 2011 has nothing to do with what he's worth in 2013 and 2014. Plus add the off the field stuff and honestly, I'd do a dance if we somehow were able to unload his contract as long as we allocate that money elsewhere in the next couple of years. and I've been a big fan of Beckett's since he got here. I'm not a big hater.

#44 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18406 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 02:02 PM

I disagree. 2011 is his most recent season and he was worth well more than the 16 he'll be paid in 2013 and 2014. It's the best indicator of the kind of pitcher he is right now. He's been worth 6.9 million so far this year. So he's on pace for 17.13 in 2012. If the injury keeps him on the shelf more than 15 days, that projection will change significantly but at this moment he's maintaining a pace that suggests he'll be worth his contract or close to it in the final two years.

The off the field issues are completely irrelevant to me. If he's producing at a level similar to what we've seen so far, I'll be happy to have him around, contract and all. The chances that they'll unload his contract without paying at least a chunk of it, then reallocate that money into one player who will bring a similar level of value to the club are really low. One player worth 4.3 fWAR (2011 total) is more valuable to a team than 3 or 4 players (or even 2) combining for 4.3 fWAR.

#45 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 4630 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 02:45 PM

How are you calculating his worth in dollars? Fangraphs? Is that a good measure? I don't want to derail the discussion but since you're so emphatic on Beckett's worth in dollars I figured looking at the methodology might be helpful.
$16m isn't an overpay for the top pitchers in either league. $16m is around the same number other top pitchers who were FA's or were extended got.

#46 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 27065 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 03:08 PM

Fan graphs also has Ellsbury valued at 43M last year, Pedroia at 36M, Gonzalez at 30M, Scutaro at 13M.

Sabathia was a real bargain, at 32M in value.

There were 22 pitchers more valuable than Beckett, FWIW, laat year. This year he ranks 33rd, right behind Kevin Millwood.

Biggest issue with him is that he's not throwing as many innings as the guys ahead of him.

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 17 June 2012 - 03:13 PM.


#47 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18406 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 03:10 PM

Yeah, I'm using fangraphs' value metric. It's not perfect, but it's a good starting point for discussion. And I think it provides enough to at least question the growing sentiment that he should be moved because he won't be worth his contract in the last two years.

And you're right that 16 is about right for a pitcher who is one of the top starters in the league but isn't one of the elite or on a team that can afford a significant overpay. I also think we need to keep in mind that even if Beckett ends up a slight overpay in 2013 and 2014, that overall the deal still stands a pretty good chance to be worth it (or even a resounding success depending on those last two years) overall and that a slight overpay at the end is simply the cost of doing business when locking up a potential free agent like this with an extension. In order to have avoided the last two years in this deal, the team would likely have had to let him walk.

Now, it can be argued that the Sox may have benefited more from his departure after the 2010 season but Elias had him as a type B free agent, so he would have only netted one draft pick in the 2011 draft. His value was depressed by an injury in the 2010 season and some poor luck and defense on top of that. Add to that his performance in 2011 and what he's done so far in 2012 and I think you have a pretty strong argument that the team has received more value from keeping him than the draft pick would have brought them.

If someone wants to argue that that value is wasted because the team didn't make the playoffs last year and are in last place this year, I'm not really sure how to respond to that as it's a hindsight argument and there is still value on the field even if the team isn't playing post season games.

#48 bosox79

  • 1625 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 11:01 PM

Morales last 3: 12.2 ip 6h 2er 0bb 17k

#49 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 02:17 AM

Plus add the off the field stuff and honestly, I'd do a dance if we somehow were able to unload his contract as long as we allocate that money elsewhere in the next couple of years


Reallocted to where though? Some pipe dream trade that nets us King Felix, the failed mega bids on Hamels/Greinke which likely crumble into wishful thinking dust under the weight of the Gonzalez/Crawford commitments, or to a relatively break even type scenario where eating that small portion of Josh's contract opens up the potential door to Edwin Jackson as the additional years replacement?

As Snod basically hit on, and beyond the surface theory, imo replacing Beckett is easier said then done atm. As barring the legitimate attempt at a rebuild, those remaining 2 years are hardly one of "holding back" factors in this present equation.

#50 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6501 posts

Posted 18 June 2012 - 07:07 AM

Morales last 3: 12.2 ip 6h 2er 0bb 17k


Yeah I think you have to take a shot at him as a starter with those numbers. Some team is going to stumble into the next Santana like the Twins did....gotta at least see what you have over 10-12 starts.

Edited by bosockboy, 18 June 2012 - 07:10 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users