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.
Sox/Padres nearing WMB for Hanigan Swap
|
Post by jrffam05 on Dec 19, 2014 15:45:55 GMT -5
I like this move. I think it was an undersell on Middlebrooks but it still makes sense for the team. Would like it if another minor piece came back but maybe that's just me asking for too much or being too emotionally attached to Middlebrooks.
No matter what your opinion of Middlebrooks was there just was no clear path to MLB playing time. If Panda gets hurt, Hanley probably moves to third and Victorino/Craig takes the OF spot. If Xander gets hurt you could see the same thing, or Marrero/Holt take the SS spot. If Hanley gets hurt he is replaced by an OF. Just no clear path to get Middlebrooks into the game, even if he was performing well in 2015.
Could someone give us more context on Hanigan. I know he is thought of as a very good receiver and defensive catcher. Could we compare his defense to where it would rank in the league, or compare him to Ross defensively, or do both?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 19, 2014 16:44:29 GMT -5
Anyway, excellent move. Everyone who thought moving WMB to another position was ever a good idea is deluded - he is an above average defender there and moving him anywhere else would lose so much value you'd have to put him on waivers immediately because, sorry, he's not going to be an above-average hitter. Ha Ha Hee Hee
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 19, 2014 16:49:13 GMT -5
Could someone give us more context on Hanigan. I know he is thought of as a very good receiver and defensive catcher. Could we compare his defense to where it would rank in the league, or compare him to Ross defensively, or do both? Framing Runs per 7000 according to BP Ross 2012: +21.3 Ross 2013: +17.4 Ross 2014: +14.5 Hanigan 2012: +19.3 Hanigan 2013: +14.5 Hanigan 2014: +10.8 Vazquez 2014: +27.1 Blocking Runs per 7000 according to BP Ross Career: +0.6 Hanigan Career: +2.7 Vazquez 2014: -5.2 DRS Ross 2012-2014: -2 in 1126 IP Hanigan 2012-2014: +8 in 2070.1 IP Vazquez 2014: +6 in 458.1 IP
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 19, 2014 16:50:39 GMT -5
How can anyone have confidence that Vazquez will hit enough to be an everyday player? No power (.070 ISO), no hit (71 wRC+) - this is a problem.
Cue abstruse pitch-framing references
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 19, 2014 16:55:55 GMT -5
How can anyone have confidence that Vazquez will hit enough to be an everyday player? No power (.070 ISO), no hit (71 wRC+) - this is a problem. Cue abstruse pitch-framing references I hate to beat a dead horse, but I think the belief held by some, is that the defensive value attributed to a catcher is so great, that having an elite defensive catcher offsets below-average offense in a way that can't be done at any other position. On top of that, Vazquez has decent contact rates and has shown enough plate discipline in the minors to suggest he should at least develop average on-base skills for the position if not better.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Dec 19, 2014 16:58:09 GMT -5
How can anyone have confidence that Vazquez will hit enough to be an everyday player? No power (.070 ISO), no hit (71 wRC+) - this is a problem. Cue abstruse pitch-framing references I think once he adjusts he'll settle into a .100-.120 ISO. He doesn't strike out much and he walks a decent amount. I could see him being a 90 wRC+ guy which is definitely passable with his defense and framing being so valuable. Like Ramireja said, catcher is the one position where defense really takes the front seat for me. SS gets that slack from people too, but I'll take a plus bat, fringe glove SS over an Iglesias type.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 19, 2014 17:02:10 GMT -5
No power (.070 ISO), no hit (71 wRC+) - this is a problem. Mainly, this is redundant, as his wRC+ certainly takes his power into account. Vazquez has consistently done well in the 2nd year at a level. 2nd year at A: 133 wRC+. 2nd year at AA: 119 wRC+. Steamer projects him for 90 wRC+ in the majors next year, making him a league average player without taking framing into account at all. (The framing is then what turns him from an average player into a star.) And he is only 24 years old.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Dec 19, 2014 17:20:18 GMT -5
MLB catchers hit 244/309/379 last year, so the bar is very low for catchers in general. In the AL it was 240/300/374.
And to add, I think every other everyday position player can produce above average offensive numbers for their position, and in cases well above average.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 19, 2014 17:24:02 GMT -5
How can anyone have confidence that Vazquez will hit enough to be an everyday player? No power (.070 ISO), no hit (71 wRC+) - this is a problem. Cue abstruse pitch-framing references Because they're not drawing conclusions from 200 plate appearances? I think everyone realizes it's a possibility that he won't. But considering that the average AL catcher hit .241/.301/.374 last year, and that just five AL catchers (although one was Jaso) with at least 200 PAs had a wRC+ above 100, the bar isn't really that high if he adds a lot of value on defense, especially in what could be a very good lineup. 15 AL catchers were above 80 and 12 were above 90, so if he can just, say, get into the high 80s with great defense, he's a worthy everyday catcher. And for what it's worth, I think everyone here would appreciate a bit less snark. You don't have to approach every discussion like everyone but you is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 19, 2014 17:39:44 GMT -5
How can anyone have confidence that Vazquez will hit enough to be an everyday player? No power (.070 ISO), no hit (71 wRC+) - this is a problem. Cue abstruse pitch-framing references OK... Though this one is clear enough you can probably make heads and tails out of it. As Chris mentions, it could be hot air, but he's been carrying the same reputation since he came out of Lowell. The fact that he was flying completely under the radar doesn't change that one bit. He should have been on top 10 lists a long time ago and some of us said just that. The Sox don't need Mike Piazza behind the plate. On the assumption that everyone is healthy, they've got plenty of bat to go around. Getting someone who guns down anything that moves and gathers in bunches of strikes for your pitchers is valuable, really valuable. As for his hitting, his September numbers [.277/.381/.355] were close to his Pawtucket numbers last year [.279/.336/.386] and those from Portland a year before that [.289/.376/.385]. If he comes close to that over a full season, he's one of the best catchers in the game. Then you can count yourself among those who underestimated the guy. You'll have good company.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Dec 19, 2014 17:41:36 GMT -5
..... and I'm not so sure about him.
But anyway, we have heard comments that some in the Sox organization think he can develop into a reasonable hitter, especially for a catcher. Probably stems from his good contact rates.
Maybe he'll hit .400+ over a couple of months, like a certain other shining defensive star I can remember from way back .....
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 19, 2014 17:58:17 GMT -5
How can anyone have confidence that Vazquez will hit enough to be an everyday player? No power (.070 ISO), no hit (71 wRC+) - this is a problem. Cue abstruse pitch-framing references Others have already pointed out his solid strikeout and walk rates, but if you dig a little deeper into his plate discipline numbers there's a lot to be encouraged by there. His contact% was 85.5%, good for 69th among 349 MLB batters with 200+ PAs last year, and he ranked 40th in swinging strike %. He was also above average at not chasing pitches outside of the zone, and above average at making contact on the ones he did swing at. In other words, there's not a lot of power there, but he can put the bat on the ball and he knows which pitches to swing at. That's not going to make him a great hitter, but I think it will prevent him from being a terrible one.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 19, 2014 18:09:45 GMT -5
..... and I'm not so sure about him. But anyway, we have heard comments that some in the Sox organization think he can develop into a reasonable hitter, especially for a catcher. Probably stems from his good contact rates. Maybe he'll hit .400+ over a couple of months, like a certain other shining defensive star I can remember from way back ..... I think the odds of him becoming a decent hitter at some point are actually pretty good, just because he's one of those guys who's going to be afforded an infinite number of chances by his glove. In other words, Will Middlebrooks does not have another 2000 PAs to figure it out; Vazquez does.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 19, 2014 18:52:39 GMT -5
How can anyone have confidence that Vazquez will hit enough to be an everyday player? No power (.070 ISO), no hit (71 wRC+) - this is a problem. Cue abstruse pitch-framing references In addition to what everyone else has said: He has been a very streaky hitter over his minor league career. So it quite possible he has a few hot stretches in-between his rough stretches. Then the Red Sox have one of the top (if not THE top) catching prospects in AAA, who is likely as good or better, right now, than almost any catcher available. If after 2 months Vazquez can't hit acceptably well, option #2 is a really good option. Would you rather have the corpse of David Ross catching 40 games before he gets injured for 2.5 mil/year? For some time his projection has been between a solid backup and a second-division starter. No reason to think otherwise until he proves otherwise.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 19, 2014 20:19:16 GMT -5
WMB had no future here and had to be moved eventually. But the problem with a trade like this or the Doubront trade last summer is that it's nearly impossible to win. There's some chance - albeit not a great one at this point - that WMB gets it together and has a decent ML career. There's no chance that Ryan Hanigan ever becomes more than Ryan Hanigan. That slash line from last year is JBJ bad.
If WMB never develops, the trade is a tie. For the RS, it'e either lose the trade or break even. Ditto for the Doubront trade. But both players, for varying reasons, had to be moved.
I was hoping for a LHH C to take some ABs against RHP away from Vaz. But I have to believe the RS looked at all options and decided this was the best one.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 19, 2014 20:26:28 GMT -5
Ryan Hanigan is a much better player right now than Will Middlebrooks. So if Middlebrooks doesn't improve, the Red Sox "win" the trade. Not that all trades can be judged in such a way. The Red Sox got a player they don't need in exchange for one that they do - it's important not to get lost in the "replacement level" abstraction. Even if Middlebrooks produces a higher WAR in 2015 he isn't likely at all to produce more value than Hanigan with respect to the actual on-hand replacements for them.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 19, 2014 20:41:45 GMT -5
Love the trade. Middlebrooks really needed a change of scenery and Hanigan is a good backup for Vazquez. Plus i am hoping hanigan gets to catch another no hitter next season.
The extra added benefit is it gives swihart a chance to mature at Pawtucket.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 19, 2014 20:50:59 GMT -5
Eric's gonna happy about this one ... This is a good, solid baseball trade for the Sox. Hanigan's got immediate value to the team as a better-than-backup catcher with the young catchers developing, Middlebrooks really doesn't. WMB has some small amount of future value still with the low chance he turns into something, but it's totally fine to trade that for some current value. I always kind of geek out on the smaller trades like this, just important to roster construction. The mention about doing this trade last year is a good example of how guys' value can change; I think most people would've considered a WMB-Hanigan trade to be a terrible one for the Sox last year. But it would've been even better then than it is today ... I've been very opposed to "selling low" on MLB, while saying I was very much open to a trade that wasn't. And I am in fact delighted. Only once since the Sox laid me off have I broken down in weakness and e-mailed them with advice. And that was to urge them to trade for Hanigan. There is still some suggestion, based on his splits by base/out situation, that he might especially thrive in a run environment where the opponents feel they can't afford to walk him, e.g., batting 9th ahead of Betts, Pedroia, Ortiz (and in Fenway Park), instead of, e.g., Kevin Kiermaier, Desmond Jennings, and Zobrist in an off year, which was his most common combo last year. Let's take the Steamer projections for WAR per 450 PA, and add half of BP's career pitch framing per 120 games (=450 PA), based on the idea that they're somehow not crediting the pitcher with his half of the work. That in fact gives you a Top 20 catcher ranking that passes the smell test in both overall magnitude and order: 5.8 Buster Posey 5.1 Jonathan Lucroy 4.6 Russell Martin 4.5 Yadier Molina 4.3 Yan Gomes 4.1 Christian Vazquez (see below) 4.1 Brian McCann 3.9 Mike Zunino 3.8 Yasmani Grandal 3.7 Rene Rivera 3.6 Ryan Hanigan3.5 Wilson Ramos 3.3 Travis D'Arnaud 3.2 Miguel Montero 3.0 Alex Avila 3.0 David Ross 2.9 Matt Wieters 2.9 Salvador Perez 2.8 Chris Stewart 2.8 Francisco Cervelli There's little question in my mind that he can start for half the clubs in MLB. Note that Steamer projects Vazquez to be the 8th or 9th best defensive catcher in baseball, based on stopping the running game and (a much smaller component) blocking pitches. That's because they took his crazy-good numbers from last year and regressed them severely to the mean. Any scout will tell you that the numbers were more or less for real and that he's at worst the second best defensive catcher in MLB, after Yadier and ahead of Perez. That's going to give him at least 0.2 and probably 0.3 or even 0.4 more of value. Considering that the 50% regression I'm using for framing may be too severe, I'm quite confident in saying that even with his .257 / .321 / .360 projection, he's one of the top 5 catchers in MLB. If one trusts these numbers, BTW, the Padres traded the 9th, 10th, and 11th best catchers in baseball in the span of two days, while acquiring the 24th best (Derek Norris).
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 19, 2014 20:57:01 GMT -5
Ryan Hanigan is a much better player right now than Will Middlebrooks. So if Middlebrooks doesn't improve, the Red Sox "win" the trade. Not that all trades can be judged in such a way. The Red Sox got a player they don't need in exchange for one that they do - it's important not to get lost in the "replacement level" abstraction. Even if Middlebrooks produces a higher WAR in 2015 he isn't likely at all to produce more value than Hanigan with respect to the actual on-hand replacements for them. Well, the bolded part is true because we already know who WMB's on-hand replacement is. It's Panda. WMB, barring a Panda injury, wasn't going to give the RS a darn thing in 2015 and, I think, would have been a minor league FA at the end of the season. But it's clear from Hanigan's performance the last couple of years that he doesn't offer much and he has decent money coming to him to boot. There's a material chance that WMB becomes a decent starting player in the ML. (By material, I don't mean better than 50-50. It's probably about 70-30 against.) So, there's a chance that we'll look back and wish the RS could have found a way to stick with WMB. There's virtually no chance that we'll look back on the Ryan Hanigan acquisition as significant. But I didn't understand the Ross signing before 2013 and he played a role in helping us win a WS, so what do I know?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 19, 2014 21:02:28 GMT -5
WMB had no future here and had to be moved eventually. But the problem with a trade like this or the Doubront trade last summer is that it's nearly impossible to win. There's some chance - albeit not a great one at this point - that WMB gets it together and has a decent ML career. There's no chance that Ryan Hanigan ever becomes more than Ryan Hanigan. That slash line from last year is JBJ bad. If WMB never develops, the trade is a tie. For the RS, it'e either lose the trade or break even. Ditto for the Doubront trade. But both players, for varying reasons, had to be moved. I was hoping for a LHH C to take some ABs against RHP away from Vaz. But I have to believe the RS looked at all options and decided this was the best one. I know the writers do it all the time, but the object of a trade should not be a "win." The object is to improve the team, or to fill a hole, or to obtain an asset that might become more valuable. Whether the player traded to the other team does better than expected, making the trade look one-sided is really beside the point, unless it obviously is a ridiculous overpay, wasting an asset of real value to the team. In general, however, the analysis should be: did the trade achieve its purpose? The Red Sox needed a solid veteran backup catcher. They got one. They traded a player who no longer fit into the team's plans, now, or in the future, and also a player of fairly low value due to very poor performance. It seems to me that this is almost the perfect trade. It does not matter how Middlebrooks does with San Diego, he was finished with the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 19, 2014 21:03:44 GMT -5
WMB had no future here and had to be moved eventually. But the problem with a trade like this or the Doubront trade last summer is that it's nearly impossible to win. There's some chance - albeit not a great one at this point - that WMB gets it together and has a decent ML career. There's no chance that Ryan Hanigan ever becomes more than Ryan Hanigan. That slash line from last year is JBJ bad. No, it isn't even remotely close. A lot of people fall into this trap where they assume all bad hitters are equally bad, but Hanigan hit .218/.318/.324 (92 wRC+) last year, which is a huge, colossal step up from Bradley's .198/.265/.266, 47 wRC+. Catchers as a whole hit .245/.309/.380 last year, good for a 94 wRC+, so Hanigan was only slightly worse offensively than the average catcher. He hit better than Xander Bogaerts (82 wRC+), A.J. Pierzynski (71 wRC+), Grady Sizemore (70 wRC+), David Ross (72 wRC+), Christian Vazquez (71 wRC+), and was basically on par with Jonny feakin' Gomes (93 wRC+). When you take into account his defense (including pitch framing), I would not be surprised if Hanigan produces more value in the next four years in the major leagues than Middlebrooks does (which is how much team control WMB has left). That's unlikely just because WMB will get a lot more reps than Hanigan will, but Middlebrooks wouldn't have gotten those reps in Boston, which narrows the gap. I'd certainly bet that Hanigan produces more value on a rate basis (i.e., per 600 PAs) than Middlebrooks does over that stretch.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 19, 2014 21:59:54 GMT -5
I think you're wrong, Jmei. Ignoring that when we consider Swihart, Hanigan's tenure may likely resemble AJ's, our FO still had options left with WMB. There was still time for him to get it and for BC to package him in a deal for say, Skaggs. IMO, WMB~Trumbo is always possible, if not likely.
This trade is a waste of value and time. JFC, why didn't BC just re-sign Mirabelli instead.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 19, 2014 22:01:08 GMT -5
How can anyone have confidence that Vazquez will hit enough to be an everyday player? No power (.070 ISO), no hit (71 wRC+) - this is a problem. Cue abstruse pitch-framing references In addition to what everyone else has said: He has been a very streaky hitter over his minor league career. So it quite possible he has a few hot stretches in-between his rough stretches. Then the Red Sox have one of the top (if not THE top) catching prospects in AAA, who is likely as good or better, right now, than almost any catcher available. If after 2 months Vazquez can't hit acceptably well, option #2 is a really good option. Would you rather have the corpse of David Ross catching 40 games before he gets injured for 2.5 mil/year? For some time his projection has been between a solid backup and a second-division starter. No reason to think otherwise until he proves otherwise. I think I might understand why some folks still think Vazquez is a second-division starter or even a solid backup, because they project his bat to be below average or even well below average. (And note that there were people here saying he projected as a first division starter last winter, if not earlier.) Almost everything we encounter in life has multiple qualities that are not strictly additive. If your girlfriend is not interested in sex, there's no way she can make up for that by being a great cook (or incredible handyman and car mechanic, whatever floats your boat); she could be the best cook in the world, and would still be immensely less satisfying as a girlfriend than someone who was pretty good at both. If that car you're thinking of buying has a terrible interior with brutally uncomfortable seats, there's no amount of safety and economy that would make it a good car; it could get a million miles per gallon and be crashproof, and you'd still buy a Kia instead. Even things in life that might seem to be additive usually break down when examined closely. A great-paying job with poor benefits, versus a lesser-paying job with good benefits? You can translate the benefits into dollars, but that translation is dependent upon circumstances. The value of health-coverage benefits, for instance, depends on your health. So our brains are very much trained to look for overall quality. We want and need things to be good in all their relevant aspects. And so it's natural to think of ballplayers that way. But playing baseball does not work the way everything else does. Offense and defense are strictly additive, and one can offset the other. In theory, a SS who struck out every time he came up could be the best player in baseball, if he literally turned every ball in play into an out. More realistically, it's possible to be a career .228 / .300 / .280 hitter -- a 68 OPS+, 71 wRC+, and .231 TAv -- and be a 4.65 aWAR player at your 5-year peak, play 2000+ games and compile 38.0 aWAR. That's near-replacement level offense and defense so good that, added to almost nothing at all on offense, you were consistently an All-Star-caliber player. Vazquez looks right now like a 3.4 WAA defender (in 120 games!), counting 50% of measured pitch framing. He annihilates the running game, picks men off base, and steals strikes like almost no one else. He is a twice-in-a-generation defensive talent -- Andrelton Simmons, if you average UZR and DRS, come out at about 3.2 per 120, so there's really no firm way to rank the two except head-and-shoulders above everyone else. Guys like Vazquez, Simmons, and Belanger don't have to even come close to replacement level at the plate to be above-average ballplayers. Simmons is coming off a season with a 71 wRC+ and 2.9 aWAR, which is first-division starter material. I hope this helps the folks who are still worrying about his bat understand precisely what we've got here. He doesn't have to a solid hitter to be a first-division player.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 19, 2014 22:05:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Dec 19, 2014 22:11:13 GMT -5
I'm always impressed by players that walk more than they strike out. You don't see that too often.
|
|
|