Kind of reminds me of Schilling who didn’t break out until 27 or so in 1993.Eovaldi could be a late bloomer too. He's only thrown around 800 career innings and lost tons of development time on the DL. And he's still only 28.
Kind of reminds me of Schilling who didn’t break out until 27 or so in 1993.Eovaldi could be a late bloomer too. He's only thrown around 800 career innings and lost tons of development time on the DL. And he's still only 28.
Beeks kind of reminds me of Casey Fossum who: 1) was part of the package sent to AZ to acquire Schilling: and 2) was the subject of an old SoSH thread titled "Awesome Fossum" in which Eric Van claimed that Fossum was the equal of the then-career-prime Bartolo Colon. Good times!Kind of reminds me of Schilling who didn’t break out until 27 or so in 1993.
He is unrestricted after this season.Eovaldi could be a late bloomer too. He's only thrown around 800 career innings and lost tons of development time on the DL. And he's still only 28.
Not to get sidetracked here, but I will always fault Gorman, not only for having no idea what he had in Jeff Bagwell, but especially after reading that his own minor league staff implored him not to include Bagwell in the trade. 'Cooper-for-Anderson' should have been a long-forgotten footnote in Red Sox history by now.I know I am in the substantial minority, but I can't really fault Lou Gorman for the Andersen-Bagwell deal. Yeah, it should have been just about anyone but Bagwell, but the idea of trading a prospect for a vital bullpen piece (or starter) made sense to me at the time in that case and makes sense to me now.
Hey there, Cooper was twice the All-star Brock Holt is.Not to get sidetracked here, but I will always fault Gorman, not only for having no idea what he had in Jeff Bagwell, but especially after reading that his own minor league staff implored him not to include Bagwell in the trade. 'Cooper-for-Anderson' should have been a long-forgotten footnote in Red Sox history by now.
Forgot all about Awesome Fossum. I remember Gammo had a piece comparing him to Jimmy Key. Jesus.Beeks kind of reminds me of Casey Fossum who: 1) was part of the package sent to AZ to acquire Schilling: and 2) was the subject of an old SoSH thread titled "Awesome Fossum" in which Eric Van claimed that Fossum was the equal of the then-career-prime Bartolo Colon. Good times!
The SoxProspect Forum features a surprisingly normal-ish response from old SoSH posters. . . .Beeks kind of reminds me of Casey Fossum who: 1) was part of the package sent to AZ to acquire Schilling: and 2) was the subject of an old SoSH thread titled "Awesome Fossum" in which Eric Van claimed that Fossum was the equal of the then-career-prime Bartolo Colon. Good times!
He's always struck me as a guy with a big arm who didn't strike out enough batters and gave up too many hits. Sort of Joe Kelly, the starter. He doesn't put us over the tax threshold, and Beeks seems relatively fungible, so I'm fine with it. But I don't expect him to be much more than Fister was last year. Frankly, I'd like to move him to the bullpen and see if his stuff can play up like "good Kelly." But I doubt that happens, at least not prior to the playoffs.His career is the definition of mediocrity or even sub-mediocrity. His ERA+ has only been above 100 once since his rookie year, though he appears to have gotten screwed by a luck a few times according to FIP.
His good peripherals this year are completely out of line with his career numbers. The 6.63 K/BB ratio is galaxies above his previous best of 3.3 (and for most of his career he was under 2) And this is the first time his WHIP is under 1. It had never been 1.3 before.
This is probably a good risk and decent insurance, but I'm curious to see how he holds up as the year goes on post injury. A guy returning from an elbow injury and being that much better is a cause for caution.
If Joe Nathan counts, how about adding Jonathan Papelbon?All-Time List of Red Sox Players Named "Nate" or "Nathan"
Nathan Eovaldi
Nate Minchey
Nate Spears
All-Time Players Named "Nate" or "Nathan" Who Made An All-Star Team
Nate Colbert
Nate Andrews
Nate McLouth
Joe Nathan
Sutcliffe just said Monday (said Cora told him). Sut being Sut?Eovaldi starting Sunday.
YesSutcliffe just said Monday (said Cora told him). Sut being Sut?
Well played.If Joe Nathan counts, how about adding Jonathan Papelbon?
This is also my opinion. I’ll add something else people haven’t properly weighted, Eovaldi isn’t a good bet be able to finish the year strong. Two TJ surgeries? What’s the track record on those? He may well have used up most of the effectiveness he’s going to have this year alreadythis is my opinion as well. I would have rather given up two lottery ticket prospects than a guy who has had a taste of the majors and might be really close.
are we sure Eovaldi can handle the Boston climate? wasn't he a bit of a headcase for the Yankees?
This is a good catch. I remember watching Yankee games where Girardi would remove him early because of exactly that.Fangraphs notes some changes in Eovaldi especially wrt his cutter. Good news!
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/red-sox-acquire-nathan-eovaldi/
Also the Globe bothered to read SBNation's Rays page where they discovered that Eovaldi is basically Randy Johnson the first two times through the order and Joe Kelly the third time through.
He could be a starter on a short leash, with the hopes that we are up 5-0 by the time he gets to the third time through.If he turns into a pumpkin after two times, I can see him being used as a power righty out of the bullpen in the playoffs, given the note above about how well he does against good RH hitters on potential playoff teams.
That's a loose use of the term "failed" in Johnson's case. Yes, he failed to go 5 innings, but it wasn't because he failed to perform - which is what I believe you're implying. He gave up a total of 5 runs in those 3 starts. Maybe he gets rocked if left in, maybe he doesn't give up any more runs. Probably somewhere in between. My point is, we don't know, but he has been better than Eovaldi in the innings he's actually pitched. Also, his first start (before he went to the bullpen) was a QS.You guys are selling Eovaldi short unless you mean playoff starts.
He's only had one in 10 starts where he failed to go 5 and with 5 quality starts. Pomeranz has failed to go 5 in 5 of his 9 starts, with 2 QS and Johnson in 3 of his 5 with 0 QS. And I'm really not buying Johnson long term with his stuff.
I don't see much of a chance where he is worse than those guys.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Johnson has him beat in ERA, FIP and the home run thing. Eovaldi has him beat in k%, bb/9, groundball % xFIP and especially WHIP by a ton (.99 vs. 1.42.That's a loose use of the term "failed" in Johnson's case. Yes, he failed to go 5 innings, but it wasn't because he failed to perform - which is what I believe you're implying. He gave up a total of 5 runs in those 3 starts. Maybe he gets rocked if left in, maybe he doesn't give up any more runs. Probably somewhere in between. My point is, we don't know, but he has been better than Eovaldi in the innings he's actually pitched. Also, his first start (before he went to the bullpen) was a QS.
Sure. My argument was and is that Eovaldi (or any other SP we were going to acquire) is not a clear upgrade on Johnson (or Velazquez). Trying to parse peripherals and weighting the ones we deem more important to see who we think is better kind of proves my point. Johnson's not really a 2.22 ERA starter (or even a 3.80 guy), but that's the result of what he's done this year. Eovaldi should be a better starter than Johnson, but his ERA is a full 2 runs higher in 2018. I'm not saying Johnson is better. I'm saying it's closer than some are giving him credit for, close enough that it's not even clear Eovaldi is better. And I think he was the best starter we were going to get.I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Johnson has him beat in ERA, FIP and the home run thing. Eovaldi has him beat in k%, bb/9, groundball % xFIP and especially WHIP by a ton (.99 vs. 1.42.
I believe more in Eovaldi's peripherals than Johnson's stuff, but that is just my opinion. Regardless, I'm happy to have Johnson as a quality long guy.
He got touched up pretty good his last two outings. Maybe they think that’s something he can adjust to in AAA while having options to enable that choice.That sucks. Workman has been their 2nd or 3rd best reliever since he came back.
In Eovaldi's 10 starts this season he's taken a no hitter into the sixth once, another into the seventh and was perfect through seven in another start. I get that you want to shore up the bullpen, but are you telling me that either of Johnson or Velazquez can't fill that role?Sure. My argument was and is that Eovaldi (or any other SP we were going to acquire) is not a clear upgrade on Johnson (or Velazquez). Trying to parse peripherals and weighting the ones we deem more important to see who we think is better kind of proves my point. Johnson's not really a 2.22 ERA starter (or even a 3.80 guy), but that's the result of what he's done this year. Eovaldi should be a better starter than Johnson, but his ERA is a full 2 runs higher in 2018. I'm not saying Johnson is better. I'm saying it's closer than some are giving him credit for, close enough that it's not even clear Eovaldi is better. And I think he was the best starter we were going to get.
My point throughout this thread is that if we were going to trade for a pitcher, I'd rather keep Johnson in the rotation and get a reliever, since the upgrade from Johnson to X starter is probably not very significant. And that upgrade to a playoff roster, assuming one of Pom/EdRo/Wright are healthy and effective, is zero. The upgrade from our worst reliever to a good one would be a better use of resources.
I just think he is a pretty fungible body and was the obvious choice to be sent down since he had the options. Brasier has certainly shown enough to be given some higher lev opportunities.He got touched up pretty good his last two outings. Maybe they think that’s something he can adjust to in AAA while having options to enable that choice.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Johnson has him beat in ERA, FIP and the home run thing. Eovaldi has him beat in k%, bb/9, groundball % xFIP and especially WHIP by a ton (.99 vs. 1.42.
I believe more in Eovaldi's peripherals than Johnson's stuff, but that is just my opinion. Regardless, I'm happy to have Johnson as a quality long guy.
Yes, adding Eovaldi does help shore up the bullpen by moving/keeping the other two there.In Eovaldi's 10 starts this season he's taken a no hitter into the sixth once, another into the seventh and was perfect through seven in another start. I get that you want to shore up the bullpen, but are you telling me that either of Johnson or Velazquez can't fill that role?
I have more confidence in Workman spotting his fastball, cutter and curve than in Kelly, Barnes or Hembree hitting their spots with the fastball. He can't throw as hard, but he has a better idea where it's going.That sucks. Workman has been their 2nd or 3rd best reliever since he came back.
I think he could actually do really well in that role if a right hander starts. He'd have multiple innings against a left handed heavy lineup.Beeks scheduled to make his debut as multi-inning guy for the Rays today. He’s basically going to be replacing Andriese in the scheduled multi-inning arm pool.
10 hits, 3 BB, 8 R in 3 innings. Good start!I think he could actually do really well in that role if a right hander starts. He'd have multiple innings against a left handed heavy lineup.
Man. I’m really rooting for the guy, but it seems like (obviously) either he’s not ready for major league hitters or he just doesn’t have it. I hope he can work through it...10 hits, 3 BB, 8 R in 3 innings. Good start!