Sox get Peavy

[Emmz]

He's a guy I'm convinced is using something. He had an odd way of having monster seasons in contract years, then sucking. And Arlington Stadium has had a huge impact on his numbers.

 

Wait, what time other than when he was signed by Seattle after hitting 48 homers did this happen?

 

He was also above average for most of his time in Seattle to be fair.

 

You can credit that to him playing in Texas all you want, he's been arguably their best hitter for 3 years now.

 

OT: This is a good move, but I can't understand how you can get all worked up about getting someone like Jake Peavy. Maybe if this was 5 years ago, or even I guess if he was pitching the way he was last year. He hasn't really been that great this year, and now he's coming to Boston to face AL East competition.

 

I guess we'll just have to see.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Emmz

[jacksonianmarch]

This is a baffling deal from the White Sox perspective. Peavy was signed to a reasonable deal for a guy whose a 2 or a 3. He's probably the best pitcher on the market at the deadline. And they effectively got one good prospect and 3 guys who look to have nearly no potential for impact in the near future.

[jacksonianmarch]

In terms of the sox, this wasn't a deal for October. This was a deal to get to October. You've been relying on Workman, who may or may not be anything special and who could cost you games in the future. He's insurance for Buchholz should his vagina continue to weep. And he's probably your #3 or 4 in the playoffs should you get all your guns back beforehand. I hate to say it, but this acquisition makes you the odds on favorite to win the east

[jacksonianmarch]

And you practically got him for a guy who didn't have a spot in this org whose number were buiyed by an unsustainable 150AB stretch. Anyone complaining about this deal from a sox perspective is an idiot

[BSN07]

This is a baffling deal from the White Sox perspective. Peavy was signed to a reasonable deal for a guy whose a 2 or a 3. He's probably the best pitcher on the market at the deadline. And they effectively got one good prospect and 3 guys who look to have nearly no potential for impact in the near future.

 

That baffled feeling you're going through is pretty much what everyone else feels every time the Yankees make a trade and give up junk lol

[BSN07]

And you practically got him for a guy who didn't have a spot in this org whose number were buiyed by an unsustainable 150AB stretch. Anyone complaining about this deal from a sox perspective is an idiot

 

I loved Iggy's defense but this was a good spot to move him. Last off season most thought he would never stick and not build any kind of value. If you said he be the main piece in a trade bringing back a mid rotation SP you would have been ridiculed right off the board

[SoxFanForsyth]

I thought you expected them to get Lee?

 

Wanted Lee. Expected Peavy.

[Orange Juiced]

And you practically got him for a guy who didn't have a spot in this org whose number were buiyed by an unsustainable 150AB stretch. Anyone complaining about this deal from a sox perspective is an idiot

 

Exactly. Oh and the Sox also got a reliever (Brayan Villarreal) who is currently injured and in the minors, but who is 26 years old and who last year for Detroit put up this line:

 

54.2 ip, 2.63 era, 162 era+, 1.21 whip, 10.9 k/9

 

So he can throw and has the potential to be very, very helpful in the bullpen down the road.

[Emmz]

And you practically got him for a guy who didn't have a spot in this org whose number were buiyed by an unsustainable 150AB stretch. Anyone complaining about this deal from a sox perspective is an idiot

 

Who's complaining about it?

 

It's obviously for insurance, but is it really ideal for your insurance arm to be a guy who's coming from the AL Central and going into the AL East, is very inconsistent, and has been hurt as much as Jake Peavy has?

 

I can't say I'm complaining, all we lost was Iglesias, who has come back down to earth. All we've gained though is Jake Peavy.

[Behindenemylines]

Cafardo says it looks like Tigers are sending Brayan Villarreal back to Boston. Not bad. 26 yo RH BP arm. Horrid this year but was solid last year. 54.2 IP, 66/28 K/BB ratio. Something decent at least, if he can regain his form.

 

Another Bard type arm. Had success in the past and throws hard, but struggled this year finding the strike zone and banished to AAA. Currently hurt with a thumb injury so I don't know what the Sox will get out of him this year.

[Behindenemylines]

Haha. Last year's free agent class did kind of suck. I think Swisher will pan out, and I still like him more than Victorino since he has a recent track record of success.

 

Even Hamilton completely s****** the bed has been a shocker. Although I'm starting to think guys inked by the Angels are cursed. That or the pressure caused by big money deals kills talent... It's another reason I love Pedroia's new deal!

 

Have you looked at Swisher's numbers? I said don't sign him because his numbers were padded by $pankee Stadium. Victorino is 100% better with the glove in RF (Fenway's RF is a place you need a CF type glove) and uses his speed to help the team in a various ways.

[a700hitter]

That baffled feeling you're going through is pretty much what everyone else feels every time the Yankees make a trade and give up junk lol

LOL! Good point. The shoe is on the other foot this time. Those trades for nothing always seem to coincide with the player's rejuvenation for the Skanks. I hope that we have the same results.

[Behindenemylines]

On paper the trade looks good: 1) You get a solid starter to help the playoff run (Peavy) 2) You save $$$$ and top prospects by not going hard for Lee 3) You also look to the future - Bogaerts is the SS, WMB will get another shot at 3B and if he doesn't work out you still have Cecchini 4) You get Peavy for Iggy (Who I think BC traded at his highest value) and three low level prospects 5) Workman becomes a power arm in the pen The risk is Peavy's health. BC says he will keep looking, but thinks the Sox are done.

[Bellhorn04]

Wanted Lee. Expected Peavy.

 

The prospect of getting Lee was exciting, but when it seemed like we might be giving up something like Bradley and Ranaudo to get him, I had a sick feeling.

 

I think we'll all be glad BenCh went the conservative route.

[a700hitter]

The prospect of getting Lee was exciting, but when it seemed like we might be giving up something like Bradley and Ranaudo to get him, I had a sick feeling.

 

I think we'll all be glad BenCh went the conservative route.

 

 

It depends on how things turn out.

[Orange Juiced]

Peavy's numbers this year: 80.0 ip, 74 h, 38 er, 17 bb, 76 k, 4.28 era, 1.14 whip, 8.6 k/9

 

A few starts ago he was horrid: 2.1 ip, 7 h, 6 er, 0 bb, 0 k. I know you can't "take that away" because they all count, but indulge me just for a moment. Take that start away and his numbers look like this:

 

77.2 ip, 67 h, 32 er, 17 bb, 76 k, 3.71 era, 1.08 whip, 8.9 k/9

 

And *that* is a very, very good starting pitcher. So why do I mention this? Because (a) his season totals are greatly affected by this one horrible outing, and other than that one start he's been very good this year, and ( the likelihood of him having another start like that is very small. Odds are good he'll throw up a couple more stinkers the rest of the season, but not like *that*. And, as we've seen, other than this horrid start, he's been really good.

 

So the odds seem pretty good that we'll be getting a starting pitcher who should give us an era in the upper 3's, with a very low whip and high strikeout rate.

 

What's not to like about that?

[a700hitter]

Peavy's numbers this year: 80.0 ip, 74 h, 38 er, 17 bb, 76 k, 4.28 era, 1.14 whip, 8.6 k/9

 

A few starts ago he was horrid: 2.1 ip, 7 h, 6 er, 0 bb, 0 k. I know you can't "take that away" because they all count, but indulge me just for a moment. Take that start away and his numbers look like this:

 

77.2 ip, 67 h, 32 er, 17 bb, 76 k, 3.71 era, 1.08 whip, 8.9 k/9

 

And *that* is a very, very good starting pitcher. So why do I mention this? Because (a) his season totals are greatly affected by this one horrible outing, and other than that one start he's been very good this year, and ( the likelihood of him having another start like that is very small. Odds are good he'll throw up a couple more stinkers the rest of the season, but not like *that*. And, as we've seen, other than this horrid start, he's been really good.

 

So the odds seem pretty good that we'll be getting a starting pitcher who should give us an era in the upper 3's, with a very low whip and high strikeout rate.

 

What's not to like about that?

Take awayv his bad start and he is a very good pitcher? I don't think it works that way.

[Orange Juiced]

Take awayv his bad start and he is a very good pitcher? I don't think it works that way.

 

Did you even actually read my post and follow my train of thought? Because this comment gives the impression that you didn't.

[BornToRun]

Did you even actually read my post and follow my train of thought? Because this comment gives the impression that you didn't.

 

I understand your line of thinking and agree with you. People always say that you can't pick and choose but if a guy has one or two really bad outings and is good the rest of the way, I think it's fair to say he's been better than the stat line is giving him credit for.

[Orange Juiced]

I understand your line of thinking and agree with you. People always say that you can't pick and choose but if a guy has one or two really bad outings and is good the rest of the way, I think it's fair to say he's been better than the stat line is giving him credit for.

 

Well right. Let's say you have two pitchers that end up with similar stats - say, a 4.00 era and a 1.20 whip. But they get there in very different ways.

 

Pitcher A routinely puts up a pitching line of 6.2 ip, 3 er, and 7 or 8 base runners. Pretty consistently doing that.

 

Pitcher B routinely puts up a pitching line of 7.0 ip, 1 or 2 er, and 7 base runners, but then has just one horrendous outing (say, 1.2 ip, 9 er, and 8 base runners).

 

Which pitcher is "better"? Maybe the overall stats show they are similar, but it tells me that Pitcher B is better. Pitcher A may be more consistent and less prone to a horrible game, but Pitcher B is more dominant, and thus is more likely to have more talent. And that one horrid outing looks like a weird outlier.

 

So in the end, they all count. But moving forward, you'd say that Pitcher B is probably a better pitcher than his final stat line looks, while Pitcher A is what he is.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Orange Juiced

[BornToRun]

Well right. Let's say you have two pitchers that end up with similar stats - say, a 4.00 era and a 1.20 whip. But they get there in very different ways.

 

Pitcher A routinely puts up a pitching line of 6.2 ip, 3 er, and 7 or 8 base runners. Pretty consistently doing that.

 

Pitcher B routinely puts up a pitching line of 7.0 ip, 1 or 2 er, and 7 base runners, but then has just one horrendous outing (say, 1.2 ip, 9 er, and 8 base runners).

 

Which pitcher is "better"? Maybe the overall stats show they are similar, but it tells me that Pitcher B is better. Pitcher A may be more consistent and less prone to a horrible game, but Pitcher B is more dominant, and thus is more likely to have more talent. And that one horrid outing looks like a weird outlier.

 

So in the end, they all count. But moving forward, you'd say that Pitcher B is probably a better pitcher than his final stat line looks, while Pitcher A is what he is.

 

Precisely.

[sk7326]

Look at it this way - The Sox kicked the tires on a true ace. But the price was absurd (blue chip prospects AND eating salary, total non starter). So you can't find a #1 - focus now is getting basically five #3 starters ... which Peavy gets them to (and possibly better than that). This is a good hedge against Buchholz' future. While the Sox are probably not going to put together a stretch like the Rays starters have (who has? a lot of unsustainable performance there), Lester-Lackey-Peavy-Dempster-Doubront is a rotation without a real soft spot, and with this lineup plenty capable of churning out professional start after professional start.

[mvp 78]

I understand your line of thinking and agree with you. People always say that you can't pick and choose but if a guy has one or two really bad outings and is good the rest of the way, I think it's fair to say he's been better than the stat line is giving him credit for.

 

Nope. Discounting poor performances is silly. That start is a part of who he is. Taking it out of his season stats renders his season stats incomplete and unusable. You can't pretend that he didn't stink up the joint a gave his team zero chance of winning that day.

[BornToRun]

Nope. Discounting poor performances is silly. That start is a part of who he is. Taking it out of his season stats renders his season stats incomplete and unusable. You can't pretend that he didn't stink up the joint a gave his team zero chance of winning that day.

Even if we're only talking about 1 or 2 starts over the course of a 30 or so start season? If someone throws up a 3.50 ERA but has two blow ups that jacks it to 4.00, you don't think it's the least bit reasonable to think he's closer to the 3.50 than the 4?

 

Not saying you have to agree but I don't think the philosophy isn't understandable. I thinks it's similar to not judging relievers too heavily by ERA because one rough go of it is enough to dilute the overall numbers.

[Orange Juiced]

Nope. Discounting poor performances is silly. That start is a part of who he is. Taking it out of his season stats renders his season stats incomplete and unusable. You can't pretend that he didn't stink up the joint a gave his team zero chance of winning that day.

 

What would you rather have: a guy who is utterly dominant 9 out of 10 starts, but that other one is a colossal stinker, or a guy who gives you 10 starts and gives up 3-4 runs every time?

 

Those are two VERY different pitchers, even if the final stat lines are similar.

[mvp 78]

A 3.7 ERA is NOT utterly dominant 9 out of 10 starts.

[Orange Juiced]

A 3.7 ERA is NOT utterly dominant 9 out of 10 starts.

 

I never said it was. You're missing the point entirely.

[mvp 78]

What would you rather have: a guy who is utterly dominant 9 out of 10 starts, but that other one is a colossal stinker, or a guy who gives you 10 starts and gives up 3-4 runs every time?

 

Those are two VERY different pitchers, even if the final stat lines are similar.

Then what's the point of this? We're taking about Jake Peavy, not a hypothetical pitcher. He has starts where he gets lit up. You can't pretend they don't happen.

[RedSoxRooter]

I love this trade. Even if Peavy turns out to be John Lackey 2.0, it's worth every cent of Iglesias.

[BornToRun]

Then what's the point of this? We're taking about Jake Peavy, not a hypothetical pitcher. He has starts where he gets lit up. You can't pretend they don't happen.

Didn't the two starts where he got throttled come right before he went on the DL? Isn't it the least bit fair to say:

 

"Yes he has an ERA of 4.28 but it was much better before he had two bad starts in which he was pitching hurt and the other numbers suggest its a decent possibility that he pitches more like the guy he was before the injury going forward."?