SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 2, 2014 10:15:32 GMT -5
Pretend that I made the precise same arguments as jmei. I've seldom agreed with any analysis more, let alone one that thorough and detailed.
I'll add one thing: what a great dilemma to have. Now that we've seen just how good Vazquez's defense is, it's beginning to look like we may have had the two best catching prospects in baseball, one a year behind the other.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 2, 2014 12:04:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 2, 2014 12:05:02 GMT -5
Swihart is still only 22 years old. We don't know yet how good he will become. He may end up an above average hitting left fielder before he's through. Of course Swihart is going to be primarily a catcher and yes maybe even completely a catcher, but a whole lot of teams would love to have his bat in the lineup more than 110 games a year if he ends up being a stud. No matter what team he ends up on. Look around the league. If a catcher can hit, teams often put them in the lineup in other positions to keep their bat in the lineup. I'm a huge advocate of increased positional flexibility in lineups, in part because I love having specialists off the bench who can snag 3-4 games a year with their unique abilities. For example, I love having a guy like Billy Hamilton as a 4th or 5th OF who you can put in late in games to steal a base if needed. If a team has several players with positional flexibility they can provide good injury back up from 24 roster spots and enable an open slot in the lineup for a specialist. Another reliever or a specialist base runner/defensive back up. I think it is one of the unknown stories in baseball. Someone should run the numbers on the real value of such options. Billy Hamilton won 3-4 games in a 3 week period 2 years ago just with his legs. Having an extra reliever can win several games a year for a team also. And maybe he'd be a good pitcher, so have him start pitching? He's great as a catcher and there is no problem yet. There is no reason to play him anywhere but catcher unless Vazquez starts hitting like Carlton Fisk and Swihart starts hitting like Miguel Cabrera.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 2, 2014 13:04:55 GMT -5
On the other hand, teams do frequently balance two starter-level catchers on their roster. There have been a few teams with overqualified backups in recent history-- think David Ross (backup to Brian McCann) in Atlanta and Ryan Hanigan (backup to Ramon Hernandez) in Cincinnati). Currently, there's the platoon situation in Oakland (which is a special case, but is worth mentioning), Rene Rivera and Yasmani Grandal in SD, and Martin Maldonado (Lucroy's backup) in Milwaukee. The Yankees have a surplus of decent catchers as well, as Cervelli might be an average-ish starter if given a chance. Most of those backups seem to be the fringy-bat, elite-defense (including framing)-types, which fits Vazquez to a tee. It may be possible that other teams are unwilling to give up real assets to trade for backup catchers in that mold and install them as starters, which means you're best off keeping them as backups and injury insurance. That may very well turn out to be the case with Vazquez, although the increased recognition of the importance of pitch framing may change things (see the Rays trading for Hanigan and installing him as starter). So maybe they end up with Swihart starting 110 games at catcher and 30ish at 3B/LF/1B/DH, and Vazquez catching the rest, and that ends up being the best use of resources.Or it may not be. Replacement level is a useful concept for global valuation of players, but it's not necessarily applicable to filling out a lineup card. Your options in left field don't include a hypothetical replacement level left fielder, they're whatever outfielders you have on the roster. So let's say you have a defense first catcher and a bat-first catcher who are both 3.5 win players as catchers. No matter how you divide playing time between them, you're getting 3.5 wins from the catcher position. BUT, if you give the majority of the starts at catcher to the bat-first guy, the glove-first guy is basically useless when he's not catching, whereas the bat-first guy may be able to help out elsewhere. Let's just say your team doesn't have a 1B who can hit. You'd technically reduce your bat-first catcher's value over replacement by giving him a bunch of starts at first base, but if he can hit better than the other 1B options available to you, then you're improving the team overall regardless of the player's individual WAR calculation. So assuming that Swihart is roughly equivalent in overall value at catcher to Vasquez, assuming that he is willing and able to play another position, and assuming that the Red Sox other options at that position are not good, the best use of resources would be to give Vasquez the majority of the starts at catcher and let Swihart's bat be an upgrade somewhere else in the lineup. Like I said, this is a fairly improbable set of circumstances. And even if those circumstances presented themselves it would still be an unconventional way of managing a roster, and as we know baseball teams are allergic to unconvention. So yeah, it's very unlikely. But like I said, I do think there's some merit to the idea.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2014 14:07:06 GMT -5
On the other hand, teams do frequently balance two starter-level catchers on their roster. There have been a few teams with overqualified backups in recent history-- think David Ross (backup to Brian McCann) in Atlanta and Ryan Hanigan (backup to Ramon Hernandez) in Cincinnati). Currently, there's the platoon situation in Oakland (which is a special case, but is worth mentioning), Rene Rivera and Yasmani Grandal in SD, and Martin Maldonado (Lucroy's backup) in Milwaukee. The Yankees have a surplus of decent catchers as well, as Cervelli might be an average-ish starter if given a chance. Most of those backups seem to be the fringy-bat, elite-defense (including framing)-types, which fits Vazquez to a tee. It may be possible that other teams are unwilling to give up real assets to trade for backup catchers in that mold and install them as starters, which means you're best off keeping them as backups and injury insurance. That may very well turn out to be the case with Vazquez, although the increased recognition of the importance of pitch framing may change things (see the Rays trading for Hanigan and installing him as starter). So maybe they end up with Swihart starting 110 games at catcher and 30ish at 3B/LF/1B/DH, and Vazquez catching the rest, and that ends up being the best use of resources.Or it may not be. Replacement level is a useful concept for global valuation of players, but it's not necessarily applicable to filling out a lineup card. Your options in left field don't include a hypothetical replacement level left fielder, they're whatever outfielders you have on the roster. So let's say you have a defense first catcher and a bat-first catcher who are both 3.5 win players as catchers. No matter how you divide playing time between them, you're getting 3.5 wins from the catcher position. BUT, if you give the majority of the starts at catcher to the bat-first guy, the glove-first guy is basically useless when he's not catching, whereas the bat-first guy may be able to help out elsewhere. Let's just say your team doesn't have a 1B who can hit. You'd technically reduce your bat-first catcher's value over replacement by giving him a bunch of starts at first base, but if he can hit better than the other 1B options available to you, then you're improving the team overall regardless of the player's individual WAR calculation. So assuming that Swihart is roughly equivalent in overall value at catcher to Vasquez, assuming that he is willing and able to play another position, and assuming that the Red Sox other options at that position are not good, the best use of resources would be to give Vasquez the majority of the starts at catcher and let Swihart's bat be an upgrade somewhere else in the lineup. Like I said, this is a fairly improbable set of circumstances. And even if those circumstances presented themselves it would still be an unconventional way of managing a roster, and as we know baseball teams are allergic to unconvention. So yeah, it's very unlikely. But like I said, I do think there's some merit to the idea. If you're reduced to playing Swihart 80+ games a year at a non-C position, you are almost certainly better off trading him. If you have a 3.5-win catcher who is at least a decent defender, you should, in theory, be able to either directly or indirectly (i.e., trade him for prospects, use those prospects to trade for someone else) trade him for a 3+ win left fielder. That's of course subject to the caveats I discussed above how the trade market is not perfectly efficient, but it's rarely inefficient enough that you're better off playing your 3.5 win catcher in left field a majority of the time, where he'd just be a 1.5 win player. In other words, if, by some stroke of luck, you have both Yadier Molina and Buster Posey on your team, the ideal solution is not to play Posey in left field 80+ games a year. The ideal solution is to trade one of them for a stud left fielder (or any other position where you need production).
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 2, 2014 16:10:55 GMT -5
No doubt, jmei, your approach is the most likely consensus analysis. Our point gives perhaps inordinate consideration to the injury rate of catchers, the importance of keeping catchers fresh, their low cost as they start out their mlb careers, the benefits of increased roster flexibility and the Sox being a near perenial contender. How many times do teams have an injury to their catcher which knocks them out of contention in itself when there is no comparable backup available? Posey's injuries....etc. Catchers get hurt and often fade in the 2nd half from the work load. Not being fresh in itself can affect their offensive capabilities as starting catchers often play through injuries due to their importance to the team. If a team loses their starting catcher, and that slot is an important player on the team, they often cannot compensate for that loss.
And I lean towards fenwaythehardway's concept as both being equal level starters at catcher and if anything Vasquez maybe even the primary starter at the catching slot, with Swihart helping out in other areas if he turns out to be a middle of the order bat. All these factors are difficult to quantify but there are so many benefits to this approach that if this hypothetical comes up, they should consider it.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 2, 2014 18:31:47 GMT -5
I think the issue is that prospects are rarely valued as highly by other organizations as their own organization and teams rarely trade good established young players to make room for a younger more talented prospect.
So even if trading Vazquez or Swihart makes the most sense from a value standpoint. The Red Sox will need at least on season of them playing together in order to establish the value and assure themselves that they aren't trading a good player for a bag of beens.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 2, 2014 21:03:16 GMT -5
If we sign Hundley and give swihart 450 at bats or so at Pawtucket, we should be covered for 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 3, 2014 9:57:06 GMT -5
Elsewhere in the org, Matt Spring and Mike Brenly have been re-signed to fill the Crash Davis roles in AAA/AA in some combination.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 5, 2014 17:45:22 GMT -5
The Astros just traded for Hank Conger, giving up Carlos Perez and Nick Tropeano. I think Conger is a poor man's version of Vazquez-- he's nowhere as good as controlling the running game, but Conger is similarly an elite pitch-framer with a fringy bat. Moreover, somewhat akin to Vazquez, Conger has put up pretty great AAA stats (career .298/.371/.470, albeit in the PCL) but has been much less impressive in the majors, with an 84 wRC+ in 768 PAs. Meanwhile, Tropeano is an MLB-ready back-end starting pitcher (think Ranaudo) while Perez is a fringy catching prospect (think Tim Federowicz). [Please correct me if you think those characterizations are mistaken; I didn't think about it too much so those are off-the-cuff comps.]
If that's the trade return for three arbitration years of a guy who, when you take into accout framing skill, probably projects to be an above-average starter, that strengthens the argument that maybe you end up keeping Vazquez and relegating him into a backup/depth role if he morphs into a Conger-esque player while Swihart reaches the All-Star-level ceiling he possesses. If the market is still not fully valuing the impact of framing and you can't get what you think Vazquez is worth, you might be better off keeping him, even if it erodes some of his value.
(Of course, it could also mean that if you believe in Vazquez's framing ability, you trade Swihart and go with Vazquez as your starting catcher despite his weaker bat. This is the direction that the Astros and Rays have gone, and they've been ahead of the crowd on stuff like this. But again, at least a year or two early before this is a consideration.)
This deal also means the Astros are likely going to be willing to move Jason Castro this offseason, now that they have Conger and top prospect Max Stassi in the organization.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 5, 2014 21:38:26 GMT -5
Is Stasi a better prospect than swihart?
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Nov 5, 2014 21:50:24 GMT -5
Is Stasi a better prospect than swihart? No
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 4, 2014 8:28:58 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal @ken_Rosenthal Among the teams pursuing free-agent catcher David Ross, per sources: #Cubs, #RedSox, #Braves, #Padres. Others also involved.
I continue to think he's the best pure backup on the market. Unless they're going slightly higher (think Jason Castro or Geo Soto-esque players), I'd prefer Ross over just about every other free agent (the only exception is Nick Hundley, who I'd be happyish with as well).
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 4, 2014 12:54:54 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal @ken_Rosenthal Among the teams pursuing free-agent catcher David Ross, per sources: #Cubs, #RedSox, #Braves, #Padres. Others also involved. I continue to think he's the best pure backup on the market. Unless they're going slightly higher (think Jason Castro or Geo Soto-esque players), I'd prefer Ross over just about every other free agent (the only exception is Nick Hundley, who I'd be happyish with as well). Perfectly serviceable backup catcher who can step in and start in a pinch, though three consecutive years of sub-.290 OBPs and a 13.9 percent caught-stealing could hurt.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 4, 2014 18:47:48 GMT -5
His skills have clearly deteriorated with age. Those are unacceptable OBP and CS stats. There has to be a better option. "Clubhouse karma" is overrated and not deserving of a roster spot. Find a stopgap until Swihart's promotion.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Dec 4, 2014 19:02:34 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal @ken_Rosenthal Among the teams pursuing free-agent catcher David Ross, per sources: #Cubs, #RedSox, #Braves, #Padres. Others also involved. I continue to think he's the best pure backup on the market. Unless they're going slightly higher (think Jason Castro or Geo Soto-esque players), I'd prefer Ross over just about every other free agent (the only exception is Nick Hundley, who I'd be happyish with as well). His problems as far as Boston being interested are the same as Ross though.. He's a RH hitter JMEI. We can probably make a guess that Rossie could have been signed for 1y by now, had either Vazquez/himself been a lefty, since it seems they want a LH veteran guy to serve as a backup to Vazquez for one season. We could probably add Molina and the recently DFA'd John Baker of the Cubs as other RH backups sitting around and now unsuitable who play strong defense, though Baker hasn't been able to hit for some reason after under going TJ surgery a few years ago. I'd just like to know exactly who IS available to play decent defense and swings from the left.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 4, 2014 20:43:48 GMT -5
Is the guy in Toronto that just lost the starting catching job due to the Martin signing a left handed hitter?
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Dec 4, 2014 20:55:17 GMT -5
Ross or Molina would be fine.
The whole point should be to be able to step in if Vasquez gets seriously hurt.
The backup by July 15 is Swihart.
He gets 1/4 of the at bats through August, 1/2 in sept, then whatever works in October
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 4, 2014 21:20:45 GMT -5
Is the guy in Toronto that just lost the starting catching job due to the Martin signing a left handed hitter? You mean Panda-lite? Yes, he hits from both the left and right side of the plate. Toronto, at this point, plans to keep him as backup and DH.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 4, 2014 23:05:06 GMT -5
His skills have clearly deteriorated with age. Those are unacceptable OBP and CS stats. There has to be a better option. "Clubhouse karma" is overrated and not deserving of a roster spot. Find a stopgap until Swihart's promotion. Pitch-framing, on the other hand... ADD: also, one reason Ross' CS was so bad last year: he was Lester's personal catcher, and Lester is one of the worst players in the league at controlling the running game.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 5, 2014 6:11:27 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal @ken_Rosenthal Among the teams pursuing free-agent catcher David Ross, per sources: #Cubs, #RedSox, #Braves, #Padres. Others also involved. I continue to think he's the best pure backup on the market. Unless they're going slightly higher (think Jason Castro or Geo Soto-esque players), I'd prefer Ross over just about every other free agent (the only exception is Nick Hundley, who I'd be happyish with as well). His problems as far as Boston being interested are the same as Ross though.. He's a RH hitter JMEI. We can probably make a guess that Rossie could have been signed for 1y by now, had either Vazquez/himself been a lefty, since it seems they want a LH veteran guy to serve as a backup to Vazquez for one season. We could probably add Molina and the recently DFA'd John Baker of the Cubs as other RH backups sitting around and now unsuitable who play strong defense, though Baker hasn't been able to hit for some reason after under going TJ surgery a few years ago. I'd just like to know exactly who IS available to play decent defense and swings from the left. Does it really matter that much what side a backup catcher swings from? Especially a defensive specialist?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 5, 2014 6:17:24 GMT -5
His problems as far as Boston being interested are the same as Ross though.. He's a RH hitter JMEI. We can probably make a guess that Rossie could have been signed for 1y by now, had either Vazquez/himself been a lefty, since it seems they want a LH veteran guy to serve as a backup to Vazquez for one season. We could probably add Molina and the recently DFA'd John Baker of the Cubs as other RH backups sitting around and now unsuitable who play strong defense, though Baker hasn't been able to hit for some reason after under going TJ surgery a few years ago. I'd just like to know exactly who IS available to play decent defense and swings from the left. Does it really matter that much what side a backup catcher swings from? Especially a defensive specialist? No, not really.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 5, 2014 8:55:33 GMT -5
The answer is no not at all...
None of the guys being talked about can hit much at all so it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Dec 5, 2014 21:32:55 GMT -5
If they sign Lester they should just sign Ross for another year. He can mentor Vasquez for another year and catch Lester until Jon is comfortable with Vasquez.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Dec 5, 2014 22:35:08 GMT -5
Me personally I would go Butler with Vasquez. If they think Swihart is the man then I don't want someone taking up space. I feel someone is gonna want 2 years. I can live with one.
|
|
|