John Sickels' take on Dana Eveland

[battlekow]

I've long suspected that Eveland just needed time to settle into a major league role and get comfortable emotionally, get over the jitters. Certainly his minor league numbers were quite strong all the way up the line, and he's not a soft-tosser: he has legit stuff. If he can show the same kind of command in the majors he showed in the minors, there is every reason to expect he would succeed. He's still just 24 years old as well.

Assuming good health, I think Eveland can be a very good number three starter going forward. Of course we can't assume permanent good health. And even this year, his 18/11 K/BB isn't great. I'd like to see the walks come down. Obviously we need a larger sample size before fully concluding that he's turned the corner. But given his minor league record and his above-average stuff for a lefty, I think there is good reason to be optimistic about Eveland.

Not a Rookie: Dana Eveland

[TooLiveBrew]

Thanks for sharing that, battlekow -- a nice read. You really couldn't dream up a better scenario for Eveland to have the opportunity to prove himself: extreme pitcher's park, solid D behind him, team not contending, weak divisional competition. Here's hoping the best for Dana!

[Gopher74]

You may have to revise that "team not contending" remark. Adding Frank is going to go a long way to helping them stay there all year. As is a healthy Rich Harden.

 

Speaking of which, Harden's a FA after this season, correct? Or is it next year?

 

Anyway, this has been posted I believe in the minors board, though it seems like this is a appropriate place to talk about it.

[TooLiveBrew]

Yea, I guess the comment with which I immediately followed 'team not contending' could've cancelled it out... oh well.

[Kurt]

It's fun to brag about great trades Melvin has pulled off over the years but I think that trade will go down as his worst.

[Gopher74]

It's fun to brag about great trades Melvin has pulled off over the years but I think that trade will go down as his worst.

Based on what? Doug Davis was gone that next year, and he's really just a 4/5 type starter.

 

Eveland's success is over a handful of a starts.

 

And we netted Guillermo Mota for Estrada. Lets wait and see how he plays out. He may be a huge part of our success this year, and will need to be if we have success. So far, so good.

 

[endaround]

Based on what? The fact that Estrada was terrible and Vargas was bad and Davis was good last season?. Mota was available for anything if the Brewers took his salary, Estrada was just a way for th Mets to easily cut salary.

[Ennder]

Davis wasn't good last year, he had a good ERA. very big difference. Eveland is a case where I don't think he would have ever done it as a Brewer, he needed a change of scenery to give him a kick in the butt.

 

Davis would have had an ERA over 5 as a Brewer last year no doubt in my mind, his peripherals were terrible, add in our defense and no way he keeps it under 5.

 

That trade was a bunch of crap for a bunch of other crap.

[kmcasper23]

You can't get that excited over 3 good starts from Eveland. The guy has extreme control problems and walks far too many hitters to be effective. I would still take Zack Jack over Eveland any day.

[endaround]

I didn't say Davis was good, but he was still better than what was received in return. And just because the Brewers wouldn't haved used Eveland doesn't mean it was good to dump him for crap.

 

Zack Jackson is close to being a bust.

[JJHardy7]

Based on what? Doug Davis was gone that next year, and he's really just a 4/5 type starter.

 

I think the fact that we could have had a much cheaper Davis than an expensive Suppan is why the deal wasn't all that great. I guess it boils down to thoughts on Davis vs. Suppan. It would also give us a lefty in the rotation (I don't think Parra is going to be in the rotation all year).

[Ennder]

I'd much rather have Suppan than Davis and I say that as someone who doesn't really think Suppan is a good pitcher.

[twobrewers]

I didn't say Davis was good, but he was still better than what was received in return.

Actually, that is exactly what you said...

The fact that Estrada was terrible and Vargas was bad and Davis was good last season

[JJHardy7]

I'd much rather have Suppan than Davis and I say that as someone who doesn't really think Suppan is a good pitcher.

 

Even with the big difference in contracts (this is assuming Suppan doesn't get traded and plays out his contract)?

[homer]

"I would still take Zack Jack over Eveland any day. "

 

Zach Jack's ERA is close to 9.00 at Nashville. No way I'd take him over Eveland.

[brettac1]

Yeah, Zach Jackson is bad. Eveland was a little fat and had some bad games in limited big league exposure. The guy dominated AAA in his first attempt at it, and you don't do that as a fluke. Jackson has basically been mediocre in AAA since getting there.

 

Heavy D obviously isn't this good, but I think he'll be a middle of the rotation starter in MLB for a long time. Jackson figures to be a reliever if he ever sticks in the bigs.

[rluzinski]

The trade looked terrible when Melvin made it and it still looks terrible. There was no good reason to think that Vargas or Estrada were anything to covet, IMO. If Melvin thought Davis was done, he should have just dumped him and moved on.

 

 

And if Ennder says something about Estada being good, except for when he was hurt in 2005, 2006 and 2007, I'm going to scream. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Ennder]

He was good in 2006...

 

Estrada had good and bad years before we got him, there were reasons to expect him to be an above average offensive C. Before he became a Brewer his only bad offensive season was one where he played half the year injured . I don't see how hard that is to believe any of that as the stats completely back it up. The organization had a black hole at the position and there wasn't much in the way of FA.

 

I still don't think Davis is much better than Vargas so it really comes down to Eveland. Vargas is a younger version of Davis who gives up a few more flyballs pretty much. I think getting traded twice probably gave Eveland the kick in the butt he needed to get his life in order and become a real pitcher. I just don't think he'd have done it as a Brewer. Krynzel is Tony Gwynn Jr pretty much, some useless 5th OF type.

 

The trade easily could have gone either way in my opinion.

[endaround]

If Vargas is a younger Davis he wouldn't have had to settle for a minor league job. You can keep pretending that they are similar pitchers but they aren't anywhere close.

[Ennder]

Doug Davis

 

2006 - 6.8 K/G, 4.4 BB/G, 68.1% LOB, 44.1% GB, 5.22 RA, 4.64 FIP

2007 - 6.5 K/G, 4.3 BB/G, 74.9% LOB, 47% GB, 4.67 RA, 4.66 FIP

 

Cladio Vargas

 

2006 - 6.4 K/G, 2.7 BB/G, 69.5% LOB, 39.9% GB, 5.42 RA, 4.88 FIP

2007 - 6.9 K/G, 3.5 BB/G, 73% LOB, 33.8% GB, 5.36 RA, 5.09 FIP

 

Davis was about exactly the same as Vargas in 2006. In 2007 they were the same for most of the year with Vargas' miserable August and the Brewers horrible defense being the major difference. The one thing Davis has going for him over Vargas is the groundballs like I said. I would fully expect both of them to have roughly 5.0-5.5 RA per game which is a #5 quality starter. Vargas actually was young enough to still have a little upside while Davis had none at that point in the trade. .

 

Doug Davis is no longer the player we saw in 2004/2005, his peripherals have taken a significant hit and there is no reason to expect him to have a good ERA. He had a bit of luck last year to keep his ERA as low as it was but he just isn't a very good pitcher anymore.

[fallingleaves]

Melvin is a bad GM when the team is a buyer. I think the Linbrink trade may end up being worse. I am starting to wonder why so many former young brewers pitchers are being scattered across the major leagues, while we have a bunch of expensive relievers.

[TooLiveBrew]

Melvin is a bad GM when the team is a buyer.

Can you provide more than the Linebrink & Estrada/Davis trades? I seem to remember a pretty darn nice deal to get Carlos Lee.

[endaround]

Doug Davis

 

2006 - 6.8 K/G, 4.4 BB/G, 68.1% LOB, 44.1% GB, 5.22 RA, 4.64 FIP

2007 - 6.5 K/G, 4.3 BB/G, 74.9% LOB, 47% GB, 4.67 RA, 4.66 FIP

 

Cladio Vargas

 

2006 - 6.4 K/G, 2.7 BB/G, 69.5% LOB, 39.9% GB, 5.42 RA, 4.88 FIP

2007 - 6.9 K/G, 3.5 BB/G, 73% LOB, 33.8% GB, 5.36 RA, 5.09 FIP

 

Davis was about exactly the same as Vargas in 2006. In 2007 they were the same for most of the year with Vargas' miserable August

1 4.64<4.88 4.64 is not exactly the same as 4.88.

2. Davis would look even better if I took away a bad month from him in 2007.

3. You aren't putting up HR/9 which shows how bad Vargas is. Davis is at less than one in Arizona, Vargas is over 1.5

 

4. You aren't even dealing with IP. Davis was at 203 and 192, Vargas at 167 and 134.

 

[BrianShouseForPrez]

You can't get that excited over 3 good starts from Eveland. The guy has extreme control problems and walks far too many hitters to be effective. I would still take Zack Jack over Eveland any day.

Jackson doesn't really do anything above average, even in the minor leagues. Eveland will have a much better career.

 

[Ennder]

1 4.64<4.88 4.64 is not exactly the same as 4.88.

 

2. Davis would look even better if I took away a bad month from him in 2007.

 

3. You aren't putting up HR/9 which shows how bad Vargas is. Davis is at less than one in Arizona, Vargas is over 1.5

 

 

4. You aren't even dealing with IP. Davis was at 203 and 192, Vargas at 167 and 134

 

1. No, but it certainly is about the same like I said.

2. If you take away both of their worst months they are about the same that season, Vargas had an extremely terrible month after his injury.

3. I put GB% which is more useful than HR/9 which is sort of a BABIP type luck stat. This is most certainly the strongpoint for Davis.

4. Vargas was hurt and moved to the bullpen, not exactly a strong comparison and I've never heard pitching deep into games as being one of Davis' strengths.

 

Most importantly Davis had a much stronger defense and a much stronger bullpen behind him in 2007 which makes his numbers look better than they were. Vargas also had back problems throughout August and pitched miserably.

 

I think Davis was the better player as I already said, there just isn't that big of a difference between the two and Vargas was young enough and had shown control improvements in the 2nd half of 2006 so there were reasons to expect not much dropoff from the deal.