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.
Trading Swihart: The Discussion Thread
|
Post by chud on Sept 8, 2015 2:47:59 GMT -5
Man, trading good young catching has to be the next toughest decision to trading good young pitching...First and foremost, if both CV and BS are healthy and show they are starting catchers, you have to eventually trade one of them to get the maximum value out of the player to the team (playing BS out of position doesn't maximize the value to the team)...so lets assume CV is healthy, and lets assume BS is an above average defensive catcher and good offensive player and someone who the pitchers trust (if not to the extent of CV), the player to trade is CV (as much as I love the guy)...and think that CV may not have the value of BS but probably holds very high value especially to certain teams valuing pitch framing/throwing (can't you just see Socioscia drooling over this guy)...But would say there's no urgency this off season (due to not knowing CV's health, offensive upside, and BS's SSS this year) to trade either of them unless someone presses hard for one, or unless DD feels there's a deal that's just too good to pass up. Smart play is to bring them both to camp, prove CV is healthy etc...and see what happens...zero pressure to act impatiently with either of them...Although I am curious what a CV, Magot, Marrero package could fetch in the young, cost controlled, staff ace department...And with this I'll leave everyone w/ the horror movie version of the "Riches of Catchers" department where the Rangers were set for years to come with Salty, Teagarden, Laird, how'd that turn out by the way...Yikes
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Sept 8, 2015 7:53:24 GMT -5
chud, your comments bring up a couple of interesting points. It seems to me that the primary argument for trading one or the other of the two young catchers is that not doing so is a waste of resources. But is it really, if we're not really sure which, or if either of these two is the "real, real deal" as opposed to a decent-to-good option that still has substantial flaws that will most likely persist throughout his/their career(s)? Maybe if one of the catchers were "fully established as an all-star/potential all-star" while the other wasn't fully established, you trade the one that wasn't fully established and hang onto the guy you assess as being your go-to guy. But are we still in the crapshoot stage with these two? Seems like the predominant opinion here now is, yes we are still in the crapshoot stage.
If that opinion represents truth, then MY inclination is to hang on to both and let the situation play out further. If both show themselves further to be top-notch catchers, then trade one and you should get great value for him when you do. If one establishes himself fully and the other falls away, then you have your starter and your loss is not trading the other guy while his value was higher. I'll take that loss for the increased probability of "getting it right" with respect to who I keep as the next-generation main catcher -- that's how important I think the catching position is. The alternative is to trade one before we have a chance to gather significant additional information, with a 50/50 chance you pick the right guy to keep.
Perhaps the most regretful situation is if NEITHER of them pans out, because then you don't have your next generation catcher AND you've lost the value you could have gotten for one of them. Which brings up an interesting possibility, though one I'd never recommend. And that is, if both of these guys have tremendous value now (and I don't know that they do, especially Vazquez with his injury) then don't agonize over the decision of which one to keep. Trade them both, get a king's ransom to solidify the rest of the team, keep Hanigan and sign another journeyman-type catcher to complement him.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Sept 8, 2015 8:22:02 GMT -5
My initial reaction was to have Swihart and Vasquez split the catching duties next season, with each of them getting 100+ games in (if you include coming on as a defensive replacement late). It would be an insurance policy in case Vasquez hasn't/doesn't fully recover from TJS.
But the more I think about it the more I am leaning to starting Vasquez off in AAA to work out the rust of missing a full year of baseball because of the surgery with Hanigan backing up Swihart at the ML level. Then if Vasquez shows he is fully recovered flip Hanigan and go with Swihart and Vasquez for the rest of the season. I would hold off on any potential trade of one of our young catchers until after the end of the 2016 season if for no other reason erring on the side of caution.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,399
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Sept 8, 2015 8:29:56 GMT -5
The pivotal question here is: Is Swihart's bat that MUCH better than CV's to offset the difference between those 2 guys gloves? Frankly, I'm not as sure as some guys here making it look: Vazquez has been average to above average hitter at every stop in the minors while being pushed age advancement wise (He always starts slow though), The MLB samples are small enough so I tend to look to plate discipline stats who are more predictive BS: 6.4% BB% 24.7% K% CV: 9.5% BB% 16.4 K% Swihart is faster (better BABIP) and more pop but is he 1.5-2 offensive wins better than Vazquez? The numbers above make me hesitant to asses such conclusion. Anyway, I don't think they should entertain the idea of trading Swihart this off season, they should see how CV's arm reacts to the rigors of a baseball season.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 8, 2015 9:44:45 GMT -5
Swihart has hit .354 since July 20. If he continues to hit this well the rest of the season I don't believe the Sox will trade him. And I sure hope they don't. They can get an ace SP FA. They don't need to trade him.
I was a big fan of Vazquez when he was coming up but it would a serious risk to assume he will be able to play every day and hit reasonably well at the beginning of next season. Matt Wieters has played in only 61 games for the Orioles this year and has had less power than he did before his surgery. I don't know how his defense has been. Most players need time to recover from a year's layoff.
The smart thing to do, I believe, is start Vazquez at Pawtucket and give him some time get back into the swing of things, literally. If he shows he is fully recovered, then the Sox have a wonderful problem. If they trade Swihart and Vazquez doesn't come back strong, then the Sox have a horrible problem.
I don't think that chance is worth taking, nor does it have to be taken.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Sept 8, 2015 11:15:11 GMT -5
Here are a couple of reasons to consider trading Swihart this offseason, before being 100% certain that CV is well enough recovered. 1.) Once the season starts, or even spring training, big trades are generally put on hold until July. 2.) Not everyone needs a catcher and no guarantee that the ones who would trade for CV or Swihart in-season 2016 would be willing to give up what the Sox want or need. 3.) The beginning of the season is important, and next year will be especially so for the sox. Wins and losses count the same no matter when they occur, but the sox need to start strong, or the media sharks will ratchet up the pressure to immeasurable levels. Grantland has a good story up about Deflategate, and it touches on how the Sox escaped a certain level of media invective because Deflategate kept the Felgers of the world occupied. 4.) I don't think people are thinking about the Swihart/Vasquez question in context. A headliner will be needed to consummate the big trade for a frontline starter this winter. Okay, so I don't have a crystal ball, but if one accepts that the Sox will trade prospects for a frontline starter this winter, then at least one cherished, high-end prospect or young starter will have to be included. I don't think it is reasonable to think the big trade will happen without a big name headlining the trade: Moncada, Devers, Anderson Espinoza, Swihart, JBJ, or ?. Keeping Swihart means losing someone else. Even if a big name is not needed to consummate the trade, it would mean (I assume), that more bodies would need to go in the other direction. So it is not just CV vs BS: which high-end guy are you willing to send away this winter in Swihart's place? I am more and more interested in keeping the younger guys to see if they can make the leap, like Margot, Devers, and Moncada, especially the power guys. The closer they are to the majors, and doing well, the more value they will have. In other words, not selling high on Swihart now may mean that we are forced to sell low on other prospects. Margot scouts well, and he is certainly well ranked on this board, but IF the front office thinks his numbers will rebound in Portland next year, you almost have to keep him (I think I don't think it is practical to say keep the kids and just go get a FA. Due to the current contracts on the books, there are limited opportunities to go in that direction and significant opportunity costs to taking that road. I don't know the Sox will be willing to bloat up their salary structure even further when the farm is bursting with tradable prospects. Besides, prospects do have a shelf life.... Also, I know i am beating the trade Swihart drum pretty hard, but I do love his offensive game and I think he can and probably will continue to get better defensively. It is simply that I believe that a big prospect will be going out the door this winter, and I see Swihart as the least painful choice.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Sept 8, 2015 11:21:20 GMT -5
4 reasons why I wouldn't trade either catcher now, or even next year:
1. As stated in this thread many times already, we simply don't know enough about CV's return and either of their true value yet. Definitely not this season unless there is a serious overpay, which is possible.
2. Catchers tend to wear down as the season goes on, so I would not be opposed to a pairing of CV/BS even beyond next season. If Swihart's bat progresses to being a true asset, give him 30-40+ additional games at DH/1B and let CV catch more.
3. Catchers, when they get hurt, tend to be very hard to replace. We saw that this year and back about 10 years ago with Varitek. Its a good position to have 2 strong options if you can find enough playing time for them, and my point above would be my solution.
4. We have no great backup to the two of them in the system other than replacement level or lower. And I don't see a lot of teams trading catchers unless they have real warts somewhere in their game.
The one scenario I see where it makes sense to trade Swihart is if our FO sees something that will limit his ceiling but other teams value him much higher, AND Vasquez has returned to game action and shown his arm is just as good as ever. So yeah, maybe next July or next offseason that may happen, but that's most likely not now.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 8, 2015 17:33:38 GMT -5
My initial reaction was to have Swihart and Vasquez split the catching duties next season, with each of them getting 100+ games in (if you include coming on as a defensive replacement late). It would be an insurance policy in case Vasquez hasn't/doesn't fully recover from TJS.
But the more I think about it the more I am leaning to starting Vasquez off in AAA to work out the rust of missing a full year of baseball because of the surgery with Hanigan backing up Swihart at the ML level. Then if Vasquez shows he is fully recovered flip Hanigan and go with Swihart and Vasquez for the rest of the season. I would hold off on any potential trade of one of our young catchers until after the end of the 2016 season if for no other reason erring on the side of caution. Not only do I agree with this but it's prudent and likely to happen. At least the part about not rushing Vasquez as it's easy due to options to send him down at the start then break him back along slowly let Swihart spend more time with a veteran, then when you establish a market for Hanigan flip him for a reliever and bring Vasquez back up. Let the two play together for the remainder of the year before even considering trading one. Chances are their value will increase unless another injury happens. I'd roll the dice on that.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Sept 8, 2015 18:34:11 GMT -5
Put me in the not trading either catcher until the 2016 season is over. If you're in love with CV's defense, praise the hell out of Swihart's work ethic and bat. Someone will definitely be interested. About 2/3 of the league:) If you think Blake is the next great offensive catcher just let his performance do the talking. While constantly praising CV's receiving and throwing skills. About 1/2 the league will be interested if he's healthy.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Sept 8, 2015 18:37:06 GMT -5
To me this a no brainer. Swihart, for many reasons, should not be traded....period! Vazquez should head to Pawtucket for, at least, 6 weeks. If he is really ready at this time, consider moving Hanigan.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 9, 2015 0:36:00 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm with the "wait a year and see" crowd. I also think the elephant in the room is that projecting Swihart's offensive numbers (and to a lesser extent his defensive performance) is a mistake. He's a first-year catcher...his offense is very likely to get substantially better, particularly as the (boatload of) doubles start turning into HR. He's also probably spent a lot of time focusing on learning the pitching staff, which will be less of an issue going forward and allow him to make adjustments as a hitter more rapidly. I also question the exhorbitant value of the WAR estimations on pitch-framing, although I do think it has real, and substantial, value. Frankly, I like the idea of keeping them both and having Swihart learn 3b, then using him as a pseudo-backup (40-50 g/yr) at catcher and the rest at 3b, and using Holt or somebody else to cover the games at 3b while Swihart is catching. He's certainly got the arm and athleticism to do it, and I'd be surprised if he's not perennially near or over .300/.360/.450, with great base running and a few steals as well. Basically, Brandon Inge with a bat and wheels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2015 4:05:43 GMT -5
Isn't it a wee bit premature to even be having this conversation? Let's first get to Spring Training and see if Vazquez is even at 100% health. If he is, then sure we can talk about trading HIM not Swihart.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 9, 2015 6:02:23 GMT -5
This sentiment, which is prevalent on the board, is flat out wrong. Both Vasquez and Swihart are far too valuable for part-time duty, and it would be a waste of resources, especially considering the needs of the Red Sox. Sure, wait to see if Vasquez comes back near to his previous form, but then you trade one of those talents for areas of need: elite, young, controllable pitching. Let competent backup catchers fill the role of back-up catcher. I prefer the defense of Vasquez to the offense of Swihart, so I would trade Swihart, but the only wrong answer would be to keep both with the intent of splitting time. I'm with you in your want for young controllable pitching. But you don't trade potential All-Stars at premium positions. I'm completely okay with trading Devers, Margot, Guerra, Travis, Chavis and perhaps Benintendi because the Red Sox are stacked at those positions in the future. Corner infield and outfielders are dime a dozen. Catchers, shortstops, and centerfielder are not. Swihart's bat is good enough to play a corner infield position when he's not catching and his defense will only improve. I agree that Vasquez is vastly superior defensively right now but he's shown nothing to indicate he's a full-time player offensively. The AL slash lines last year were 240/300/373 with a 673 OPS. Vasquez hit in his rookie season no less 240/308/309 for a 617 OPS. So in his rookie year his BA was exactly average his OBP was just above and his slugging was below average. How when when one logically concludes that as a rookie his bat should continue to improve especially with catchers who are told to focus on defense and don't worry about the offense so much can one conclude as you have that he's done nothing to indicate he's a full time player offensive
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Sept 9, 2015 6:34:22 GMT -5
Lets see what those WAR numbers look like in 4 or 5 years when Betts, Swihart, Owens, Barnes, JBJ, Johnson, Kopech and Benintendi start accumulating WAR.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 9, 2015 6:38:21 GMT -5
Lets see what those WAR numbers look like in 4 or 5 years when Betts, Swihart, Owens, Barnes, JBJ, Johnson, Kopech and Benintendi start accumulating WAR. Yeah, of all of those, I think only 4 will accumulate a significant amount of WAR. (Betts, Swihart, JBJ, Benintendi)
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Sept 9, 2015 7:23:32 GMT -5
Lets see what those WAR numbers look like in 4 or 5 years when Betts, Swihart, Owens, Barnes, JBJ, Johnson, Kopech and Benintendi start accumulating WAR. Yeah, of all of those, I think only 4 will accumulate a significant amount of WAR. (Betts, Swihart, JBJ, Benintendi) True, but don't discount the ability of being able to pump out Major league role players who can contribute. Marrero, Owens, Johnson, Ramirez, Kopech, Workman, plus others could easily add 10 WAR over the course of their time in Boston even if none of them become first division starters. Point is, systems have ups and downs and if the Sox haven't produced a lot of WAR from their system in recent years that is an indictment on how strong their farm was years ago. I don't think anyone here would argue how great and strong our system was back in 2009, 2010 etc etc. None of us have a crystal ball, but betting the Sox farm system produces significantly more homegrown WAR over the next 5 years than they have over the last 5 is a good bet.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Sept 9, 2015 8:02:40 GMT -5
I would not trade Blake. I also would keep Vasquez.
With injury history I don't think a full time role is necessary for either Vasquez or Swihart until mid 2017 the earliest with 2018 a likely decision point.
Should Blakes bat improve to its ceiling it may dictate a move from the dish anyway.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 9, 2015 8:55:50 GMT -5
Why is it, that everytime the redsox or the farm starts to get more than one good or up and coming player at a certain position, everyone thinks we should trade one immediately. Trading Swihart is a mistake in my eyes. Since when did a team win a world series and someone go, wow that pitch framing really made the difference in that series. Or is it more likely that the catcher with a much better offense is more likely to get a hit in a critical spot rather than throwing out a runner in a critical spot. I'd go with the better offensive weapon 10 out of 10 times.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Sept 9, 2015 9:02:50 GMT -5
I understand we need an ace, and to get, we need to give. But the in my opinion, trading good hitters for good picthing is a lateral move. Basically robbing Peter to pay Paul.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 9, 2015 9:04:35 GMT -5
Chris Archer would look good in Sox red and white. Mark Tomkin of the Tampa Bay Times writes that the Rays will be seeking a shortstop and catcher in the offseason as Asdrubal and John Jaso are FA and, in Cabrera's case, is a good bet to leave. www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/rays-aim-to-finish-strong/2244376. Archer would certainly be equal value for Swihart and DD could include Deven Marrero to the Rays. I, too, don't want to see Blake go, but, given the Sox need for an "ace", I make that trade.
|
|
|
Post by rismith on Sept 9, 2015 9:04:40 GMT -5
keep Swihart
sign Zimmerman
trade Buch amd Margot for Kimbrell
lose a draft pick if necessary.
find one other middle reliever.
p.s. better to lose a draft pick and sign the starter than to give up a known quantity in Swihart. We are a big market team and can afford Zimmerman minus Buch.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 9, 2015 9:53:34 GMT -5
Zimmerman is the worst of the big name FAs. He is not the ace the Sox need. Kimbrell probably can be had for less than what you propose. Price and Cueto do not cost draft picks although there certainly have to be questions about Cueto.
I agree that Swihart should not be traded for the reasons stated in an earlier post above.
|
|
|
Post by rismith on Sept 9, 2015 10:00:51 GMT -5
Zimmerman may not be Price but he represents a guy who gives you consistent quality innings that you can depend on. With him and a renewed Porcello, Miley, Rodriguez and possibly an improved Kelly with a better backend bullpen....not sure spending 180M for a Cueto makes sense.
I would love Price but not sure he comes...
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 9, 2015 10:09:49 GMT -5
Zimmermann, though having some success this season, is a mid-rotation starter and would command a 5 - 6 yr. deal. Cueto has lost his last three starts to BAL, DET and CWS, the latter only lasting three innings. His ERA is at 4.91 in his last 7 starts. He'd want a long term pact for a ransom. Price, the cream-of-the-crop, will enjoy a bidding war with the Dodgers, Yankees, Toronto and possibly the Cubs in on it. He goes right to opening day for the Sox, but at what cost?
I believe their best option is a trade for a young cost-controlled pitcher in the Cole, Gray, Archer mode but it would take top prospects to pull it off. The Sox do have blocked prospects like Marrero and Margot, Guerra and some pitchers available.
I'd also check with the Reds to see what they're asking for Chaps.
I trade Swihart only for a young, top-of-the-rotation starter like those mentioned above.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Sept 9, 2015 10:23:37 GMT -5
Given what we've seen from Weiters this season, I don't see how you can trade Swihart this off-season. I like Hanigan as a back-up, but I don't want him catching half the games of more.
|
|
|