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.
Swihart vs. Vazquez vs. Hanigan
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 1, 2016 16:15:02 GMT -5
I'm reminded by a link in 108 stitches today that Dan Butler had Tommy John in college. Part of why he was an UDFA.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Mar 2, 2016 8:58:15 GMT -5
Nice. I stand by my assertion that this is a sample from which nothing can be derived. I agree. And even if it WERE a sample from which a general conclusion about outcomes could be drawn, I still wouldn't want the organization to take steps (e.g., trade Swihard or Hanigan) that don't allow for the fact that general conclusions aside, you'd never know if CV's situation would be an outlier outcome -- specifically, an unfortunate outlier outcome. The Sox have what could be an absolute once-in-a-generation (if even that frequent) possibility to have stupendous coverage at a position of supreme importance. It could be like having Posada and Molina on the same squad, with both players potentially available for the next decade at least. Now a bump has appeared in the road with CV. The talk about trading one or the other of them, or even trading Hanigan for now, is not sensible IMO. The LAST thing I want to have happen is for the Sox to make a decision on this too early and completely botch what could have been an enormous competitive advantage for them over the next decade +, as part of what could potentially be the next great home-grown Sox franchise. I say this for purely selfish reasons. This "emerging generation" of Sox youngsters and the talent closest in the pipeline is most likely the last generational wave of Sox young talent that I will see. If players such as Betts, Bogaerts, CV, Swihart, ER, Moncada, Espinoza, etc. flourish and play full careers, by the time all of their careers are over I will more likely than not have died. I think we can all agree CV will start in Pawt....My fear is that at midseason all 3 are playing well, The RS will trade CV or Blake. This new wave of prospects coming up is lacking a catcher. I know it's a slight (or more than slightly) overkill to have both CV & BS on the same roster. Just think with all the injuries to catchers, we need both. If we had a blue chipper in Salem or Portland, then trade one of CV or BS. The fact is we don't.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 2, 2016 9:07:13 GMT -5
I agree. And even if it WERE a sample from which a general conclusion about outcomes could be drawn, I still wouldn't want the organization to take steps (e.g., trade Swihard or Hanigan) that don't allow for the fact that general conclusions aside, you'd never know if CV's situation would be an outlier outcome -- specifically, an unfortunate outlier outcome. The Sox have what could be an absolute once-in-a-generation (if even that frequent) possibility to have stupendous coverage at a position of supreme importance. It could be like having Posada and Molina on the same squad, with both players potentially available for the next decade at least. Now a bump has appeared in the road with CV. The talk about trading one or the other of them, or even trading Hanigan for now, is not sensible IMO. The LAST thing I want to have happen is for the Sox to make a decision on this too early and completely botch what could have been an enormous competitive advantage for them over the next decade +, as part of what could potentially be the next great home-grown Sox franchise. I say this for purely selfish reasons. This "emerging generation" of Sox youngsters and the talent closest in the pipeline is most likely the last generational wave of Sox young talent that I will see. If players such as Betts, Bogaerts, CV, Swihart, ER, Moncada, Espinoza, etc. flourish and play full careers, by the time all of their careers are over I will more likely than not have died. I think we can all agree CV will start in Pawt....My fear is that at midseason all 3 are playing well, The RS will trade CV or Blake. This new wave of prospects coming up is lacking a catcher. I know it's a slight (or more than slightly) overkill to have both CV & BS on the same roster. Just think with all the injuries to catchers, we need both. If we had a blue chipper in Salem or Portland, then trade one of CV or BS. The fact is we don't. I don't agree. If Vazquez looks like he has recovered completely, he should be the starting catcher. He is the best catcher of the three if he's healthy. Swihart has a lot of room to improve defensively, which should be worked on in the minors.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Mar 2, 2016 10:15:18 GMT -5
I'm not saying CV should not start when he's healthy. He probably should. All I'm saying if/when that happens, I don't want the Sox to say, "well CV is good to go, so let's trade Blake". Trade Hanigan or, as you say, let Blake season some more in Pawtucket.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Mar 2, 2016 10:41:48 GMT -5
I'm not saying CV should not start when he's healthy. He probably should. All I'm saying if/when that happens, I don't want the Sox to say, "well CV is good to go, so let's trade Blake". Trade Hanigan or, as you say, let Blake season some more in Pawtucket. The trade/don't trade Swhihart (or CV) discussion has been incomplete, and I don't know why. Hardly anyone accounts for what we could expect to come back in a trade of Swihart. It is frankly weird, it is like everyone thinks we would get an Allen Craig/Joe Kelly type return, which is not reasonable. When talking about the next 10 years of the Sox core, or the value that Swihart represents, there has to be some value given to who would come back in trade. Otherwise, the conversation will stay stagnant and the same points will be made over and over again. It should be a given that Swihart would bring back significant talent. Like a top 50 player, plus a usable major league player, a solid low-minor prospect, and a low-minor lottery ticket or two. Quibble with my example if you want, it really is a guess, but that is not the point. Trading Swihart may or may not hurt the Sox in the short-term, but it is an excellent opportunity to stock up on quality prospects, especially at positions or levels where the Sox are thin. Agree or disagree, but holy heck, don't ignore the potential return, it makes the conversation less than useful.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Mar 2, 2016 11:23:34 GMT -5
I'm not saying CV should not start when he's healthy. He probably should. All I'm saying if/when that happens, I don't want the Sox to say, "well CV is good to go, so let's trade Blake". Trade Hanigan or, as you say, let Blake season some more in Pawtucket. The trade/don't trade Swhihart (or CV) discussion has been incomplete, and I don't know why. Hardly anyone accounts for what we could expect to come back in a trade of Swihart. It is frankly weird, it is like everyone thinks we would get an Allen Craig/Joe Kelly type return, which is not reasonable. When talking about the next 10 years of the Sox core, or the value that Swihart represents, there has to be some value given to who would come back in trade. Otherwise, the conversation will stay stagnant and the same points will be made over and over again. It should be a given that Swihart would bring back significant talent. Like a top 50 player, plus a usable major league player, a solid low-minor prospect, and a low-minor lottery ticket or two. Quibble with my example if you want, it really is a guess, but that is not the point. Trading Swihart may or may not hurt the Sox in the short-term, but it is an excellent opportunity to stock up on quality prospects, especially at positions or levels where the Sox are thin. Agree or disagree, but holy heck, don't ignore the potential return, it makes the conversation less than useful. Good points....Everything hinges on value/RS needs. As you say though, you try to replenish or replace needs for the present and future teams. Catcher is one of the areas where they are thin. The current ML team seams set. I would guess multiple high end prospects could work, maybe including a blue chip catcher.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 2, 2016 12:48:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Mar 2, 2016 22:24:31 GMT -5
I'm not saying CV should not start when he's healthy. He probably should. All I'm saying if/when that happens, I don't want the Sox to say, "well CV is good to go, so let's trade Blake". Trade Hanigan or, as you say, let Blake season some more in Pawtucket. Chances are he's starting in Boston at least until CV is healthy. He was forced, somewhat, last season to prematurely. After a slow start the kid played really well especially offensively but his defense vastly improved. His second half numbers 303/353/452 for a 23 rookie catcher is outstanding. Many observed how improved his defense game was and we saw how the overall pitching for the Sox improved greatly too which one has to attribute at least in small measure to Swihart's D. Chances are he's not going down again unless it is for the explicit reason of trading Hanigan so that Swihart and Vasquez can platoon for hopefully at least a few seasons.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Mar 2, 2016 23:46:51 GMT -5
Did not the herald report that varitek thought swihart made huge leaps this offseason with his defense?
Hanigan is a really good receiver. If Vazquez is healthy and swinging a decent bat, maybe hanigan can be trade bait this summer.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 3, 2016 0:19:40 GMT -5
I've seen reports that Swihart is taking charge more now. Last year as a rookie, he was reluctant to do that. I've also seen statements that he's been working on his pitch framing skills.
Also during yesterday's game, I saw positive tweets regarding Swihart's blocking dirt balls. It's pretty easy to forget that he was thrust into a starting role a year earlier than anticipated.
Subjective statement: The media seems leaning more and more towards Swihart as the primary catcher of the future, not Vazquez. Almost every time someone makes that statement it seems that there's an assumption of improved defense. The opposite view of the typical posts here. Note, it's just little things and I could be off in my gut interpretation.
DD: “I think Swihart has a chance to be a foundation-type player,” (He also mentioned ERod as a foundation-type player).
ADD: From an older Speier 108 stitches:
FINDING HIS VOICE: Blake Swihart tells Peter Abraham that after his callup to the big leagues, he was so nervous that he couldn’t eat for a week. The uncertainty about his place extended to his work as a catcher, where Swihart felt reluctant to direct veteran pitchers when he was behind the plate. This year, with the benefit of four months of big league experience and a sense that he is being asked to lead the pitching staff, Swihart says that he is ready to assert himself in the same way that he did as he came up through the minors.
ADD2: Just because I always liked this quote and it's the opposite situation, I'll post it:
“First sinker I ever threw was to Jason Varitek in my first start in the big leagues. … He said, ‘Here, throw a two-seam.’ I guess he thought I threw one. So I just gripped it and threw it. I wasn’t going to tell Jason Varitek I didn’t throw a two-seam fastball." Clay Buchholz
*quote stolen from poster On-Base.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 3, 2016 13:40:01 GMT -5
If anyone remembers the Monkee's song " Look Out, Her Comes Tomorrow" (written by Niel Diamond in his great "Cherry, Cherry" days) ... Vazquez versus Swihart will seem familiar. And unless there's an asteroid headed in our direction, we're going to get an answer rather than a fadeout. I'm with everyone else: Swihart's likely floor is a borderline All-Star, a guy who's top 5 - 6 in MLB, and is hence in that conversation every year. His ceiling is a perennial All-Star and a guy who's in the conversation as the best catcher in the game. That guy has huge value, trade or otherwise. The thing is, a healthy CV is probably already as good as Swihart's ceiling, but he has a lot less trade value because, even though it's irrational, teams still value a more well-rounded talent than one whose value is disproportionately defensive. That the Sox keep talking about Swihart as a future foundational player does not mean that they think they're unlikely to trade him. It's a true statement that lets other teams know just how much they value him. Note that there have been no statements of the sort "we expect him to be our catcher for years to come," which teams sometimes do make about a young player, as a means to reduce pressure on them. In the ideal world, they both have great seasons, and Swihart is the most sought-after commodity on next winter's trade market. Imagine what he could get bundled with Kelly or Owens, for starters. (Castillo actually has positive trade value with his very modest hitting projections plus a regressed version of his elite SSS defense. He has to show the latter is for real and/or make progress with the bat, and Benintendi needs to arrive on schedule, but I wouldn't sell short the possibility of his being a desirable trade chip next winter, a guy who could provide $15 - $20 million of value in CF for $10M a year. If they keep Elias in the rotation, they'd have enough SP depth to trade Johnson as long as they get back a guy they can stash in AAA, just like they got Elias back when they traded Miley. It could be quite the package.)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 3, 2016 13:49:59 GMT -5
I understand the public statements part but also keep in mind Henry's recent statements regarding cyber/scouting. Maybe the scouting also has a balanced catcher preference. I just don't think it's as cut 'n dry as it was a few months ago.
LOL, with the Dodgers recent pitching woes, I'm thinking Joc Peterson might be had for Castillo (or JBJ) and an excess starter plus maybe some PawSox reliever depth. A Boston outfield of Betts, Benintendi and Peterson would feature 3 multi talented players. Next year, we could package the out catcher and a starter for a starter upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Mar 3, 2016 14:28:08 GMT -5
I'm with everyone else: Swihart's likely floor is a borderline All-Star, a guy who's top 5 - 6 in MLB, and is hence in that conversation every year. His ceiling is a perennial All-Star and a guy who's in the conversation as the best catcher in the game. That guy has huge value, trade or otherwise. The thing is, a healthy CV is probably already as good as Swihart's ceiling, but he has a lot less trade value because, even though it's irrational, teams still value a more well-rounded talent than one whose value is disproportionately defensive. That the Sox keep talking about Swihart as a future foundational player does not mean that they think they're unlikely to trade him. It's a true statement that lets other teams know just how much they value him. Note that there have been no statements of the sort "we expect him to be our catcher for years to come," which teams sometimes do make about a young player, as a means to reduce pressure on them. Wait what? Everyone thinks Swihart is a borderline all-star? I think it's maybe 50% likely he reaches that level, but his floor is a backup catcher. We don't know if his defense will improve, or if he can hold up to a full-MLB workload (though that concern is probably ovreblown) or if his bat will really excel, or just be OK. And I disagree even more about Vasquez being at the perennial all-star level already. He has to hit some, and while I believe that framing is valuable, I don't know if it is quite as valuable as it's being made out to be. Could be, but I don't know. His hitting still has a little ways to go before getting away from black hole status. I do think that both are going to be good, but would prefer to wait until we're really sure before trading one away. I think by July 2017, we might have a good enough read, but unlikely before that. ADD: and I also feel that Swihart has a higher ceiling than CV, even if he's likely on balance to be less valuable.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,207
|
Post by radiohix on Mar 3, 2016 17:08:55 GMT -5
If both healthy, I'll take Vazquez over Swihart because I think CV reaching a league average bat level (.710-.740 OPS) is more probable than Swihart hitting at an All-Star Catcher level (Over .800 OPS)I love Blake but Vazquez solid awarness of the strike zone and his contact oriented offensive game make him the safer bet for me...Hell! I even see some sneaky power in that swing, he can get pull happy sometimes but I see potential in there.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 3, 2016 17:19:56 GMT -5
I understand the public statements part but also keep in mind Henry's recent statements regarding cyber/scouting. Maybe the scouting also has a balanced catcher preference. I just don't think it's as cut 'n dry as it was a few months ago. Scouts have zero input into how good players are or have been. Zero. Nada, zilch, bupkes. You measure how good players have been with sabermetrics. Scouts tell you how a player's performance may change in the future. They are invaluable for that, and the only negative thing Henry has said about sabermetrics is that the Sox overrated how much it can tell you about a player's future performance relative to his present performance. It's hard to imagine how the scouts have any opinion about projecting a healthy CV's defense which might change the equation. They're not in the business of projecting young players to get worse. And CV needs to get less valuable on defense for Swihart to become the guy you want to keep. In fact, if that happens, it will be because of sabermetric analysis of both of their pitch-framing this year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 3, 2016 17:50:10 GMT -5
I'm with everyone else: Swihart's likely floor is a borderline All-Star, a guy who's top 5 - 6 in MLB, and is hence in that conversation every year. His ceiling is a perennial All-Star and a guy who's in the conversation as the best catcher in the game. That guy has huge value, trade or otherwise. The thing is, a healthy CV is probably already as good as Swihart's ceiling, but he has a lot less trade value because, even though it's irrational, teams still value a more well-rounded talent than one whose value is disproportionately defensive. That the Sox keep talking about Swihart as a future foundational player does not mean that they think they're unlikely to trade him. It's a true statement that lets other teams know just how much they value him. Note that there have been no statements of the sort "we expect him to be our catcher for years to come," which teams sometimes do make about a young player, as a means to reduce pressure on them. Wait what? Everyone thinks Swihart is a borderline all-star? I think it's maybe 50% likely he reaches that level, but his floor is a backup catcher. We don't know if his defense will improve, or if he can hold up to a full-MLB workload (though that concern is probably ovreblown) or if his bat will really excel, or just be OK. I think everyone on this board is that high on Swihart. The track record of BA Top 20 catching prospects is remarkably strong. Swihart's defense in MLB was actually a disappointment, as he had won the award for best defensive catcher in the minors and even had excellent pitch-framing estimates. His defensive tools are plus, his work ethic and makeup plus-plus, and he he still has less experience than most catchers his age. He's already being projected to be above-average at the plate for a catcher by every system but ZiPS (which has him average), and scouts of course are significantly higher than that. No, he doesn't. I explained already in this thread that his defense is so good that he can be a black hole offensively and still be a top 10 catcher in MLB, and that he projects to be second to Posey using the extant hitting projections. Which is why I counted only 57% percent of what he did in 2014 in making that estimate. .303 / .379 Average catcher OBP / SA. The following projections for CV knock off 10 points off of each for Fenway: .317 / .359 PECOTA. That's a bit above average, since OBP is roughly twice as valuable than SA. .315 / .367 Steamer .283 / .315 ZiPS Since starting catchers hit a bit better than all catchers, you have two systems which think he's a bit below average as a hitter for a starting catcher, and one that has him as well below average but nowhere near "black hole," about 25th among starting catchers. If CV is slow to recover from the elbow, mid-2017 is very reasonable. But we only need less than half a season of healthy CV to get a new pitch-framing figure to add to the old one, and I think a full season of Swihart development will give us enough data on him. Meanwhile, keeping them both into 2017 makes resolving the backup situation for the short-term much, much harder.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 3, 2016 18:44:54 GMT -5
I've seen reports that Swihart is taking charge more now. Last year as a rookie, he was reluctant to do that. I've also seen statements that he's been working on his pitch framing skills. Also during yesterday's game, I saw positive tweets regarding Swihart's blocking dirt balls. It's pretty easy to forget that he was thrust into a starting role a year earlier than anticipated. Subjective statement: The media seems leaning more and more towards Swihart as the primary catcher of the future, not Vazquez. Almost every time someone makes that statement it seems that there's an assumption of improved defense. The opposite view of the typical posts here. Note, it's just little things and I could be off in my gut interpretation. DD: “I think Swihart has a chance to be a foundation-type player,” (He also mentioned ERod as a foundation-type player). ADD: From an older Speier 108 stitches: FINDING HIS VOICE: Blake Swihart tells Peter Abraham that after his callup to the big leagues, he was so nervous that he couldn’t eat for a week. The uncertainty about his place extended to his work as a catcher, where Swihart felt reluctant to direct veteran pitchers when he was behind the plate. This year, with the benefit of four months of big league experience and a sense that he is being asked to lead the pitching staff, Swihart says that he is ready to assert himself in the same way that he did as he came up through the minors.ADD2: Just because I always liked this quote and it's the opposite situation, I'll post it: “First sinker I ever threw was to Jason Varitek in my first start in the big leagues. … He said, ‘Here, throw a two-seam.’ I guess he thought I threw one. So I just gripped it and threw it. I wasn’t going to tell Jason Varitek I didn’t throw a two-seam fastball." Clay Buchholz *quote stolen from poster On-Base. I've always loved that Buchholz quote. Says a lot about both of them. I'm not sure even what that is, but it's still hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 3, 2016 19:16:01 GMT -5
Ah OK, so Farrell checks all the sabermetric results before making out a lineup and his coaches or personal opinions don't come into consideration. The fact that a pitcher has a new pitch, a batter a new approach, a player in plus or minus condition has nothing to do with decisions. It's exactly that attitude that Henry was addressing, it's total BS.
Ah OK, Swihart is the most sought after but Vazquez the better option. In effect, what you are saying is that the Sox are one of the only teams capable of determining who is the best option. Imagine what Vazquez would fetch if only the other teams were capable of doing statistical analysis.
Swihart or Vazquez is not written in stone no matter how much you wish were the case.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 4, 2016 0:18:59 GMT -5
With the fact that our 9 or 10 most likely starters are under control through at least 2017 and the fact that Moncada and Benintendi are not that far away, there's also the distinct possibility that we would keep both Vazquez and Swihart and use Ortiz' vacancy to generate ABs for the wealth of position players. Their trade value could conceivably be high and yet holding both could be a greater team total than the difference between whatever position we are trying to improve upon. Two catchers sharing the position would likely lengthen their careers.
Hannigan could easily be the odd man out here. Our top 5 prospects represent a potential major injection into an already strong core.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 4, 2016 2:28:08 GMT -5
Ah OK, so Farrell checks all the sabermetric results before making out a lineup and his coaches or personal opinions don't come into consideration. The fact that a pitcher has a new pitch, a batter a new approach, a player in plus or minus condition has nothing to do with decisions. It's exactly that attitude that Henry was addressing, it's total BS. Ah OK, Swihart is the most sought after but Vazquez the better option. In effect, what you are saying is that the Sox are one of the only teams capable of determining who is the best option. Imagine what Vazquez would fetch if only the other teams were capable of doing statistical analysis. Swihart or Vazquez is not written in stone no matter how much you wish were the case. I said "are or have been" to emphasize a meaning of "are." Everything you name is a new development that would not show up in the stats a player already had put up. I'm with you 100% about the need for a scout to tell you how much better or worse all of that might make a player. But to ask a scout who was more valuable last year, player X or player Y? That's hilariously wrong (and if you have any doubt about that, Cafardo still asks them). It was scouts who thought Danny Cater was a good first basemen. It's their job to tell you how good a player's skills are, and crucially, how those skills are likely to change in the future. It's not their job to figure out how those skills contribute to perceived performance, let alone total value. Front offices composed of guys with only scouting backgrounds got that painfully, painfully wrong for years, as any Sox fan should know. Re the actual value versus trade value: no, it's not that the Sox are the only team capable of figuring out the actual value. But consider the GM who trades for CV and gives us his actual value. First, he's pilloried by the local media and fans for insanely overpaying. Then he has to sit privately and watch while Vazquez takes 0.30 off of every pitcher's ERA ... the catch being that no one is capable of noticing it directly, the way you notice a player hitting a home run or throwing out a runner at second. It can only be pointed out after the fact, and then you have to justify it statistically. It's invisible value, the way Boggs had invisible value by using up fewer notes and giving every good hitting teammate more PA's. If part of a player's value is invisible to media and fans, it's hard for a GM to justify that to them. Every team in MLB that needs a catcher will give us full value for Swihart. Most will not give us full value for CV -- a few of them, possibly, because they don't yet trust the pitch framing numbers, but the rest because they have to keep their jobs and the perception of a trade will be more important to them than the actuality. Trading a player with visible value for invisible value, and then seeing the team win fewer games even if your own metrics show you made the team better through the trade -- that's a hard sell to media, fans, and certainly to some owners. If Swihart projected to be better than a healthy CV it would be a horrible dilemma. But fortunately, he's not quite that good, at least not yet. And of course CV's health is still a wild card.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 4, 2016 4:14:55 GMT -5
BA just described the current catching prospect class as "Thin. Sparse. Barren. Pick your adjective. [There were only 2 catchers in the top 95 of their prospect list, Gary Sanchez at 36 and the Cubs' Wilson Contreras at 67. There were 3 more at 96 through 98.] There are a number of future big leaguers ... but there aren’t many catchers who project as long-term regulars." That has to really amp Swihart's trade value. For 28 teams, if they don't have their catcher of the near future in the majors, they don't have it, period. I'm looking into who fits that description later.I'll do the AL first. Numbers in parentheses are Steamer WAR projections for 2016 plus my projected framing runs; contracts and ages are as of next winter. Huge need:
White Sox. They took a one-year flier on Alex Avila (0.6, with -1.6 framing, whether I use his last year or his last two for the projection), apparently hoping that the framing, which was good a few years ago, will bounce back at least somewhat. They've got nothing else. Definite Need:
Tigers. James McCann (0.9) won the starting job last year as a rookie but does not project to be anywhere near average. Their two top catching prospects fell out of their top 30. Athletics. Billy Beane’s got to know that Stephen Vogt (1.6) is a bad pitch framer, right? He’ll have two years of arb left and will be 31. Rangers. Robinson Chirinos (1.2) will be 32, with 3 years of arb left. Probably interested:
Astros. Jason Castro (2.4) will be a FA, and they have little else. Possibly interested:
Orioles. Matt Wieters (2.0) will be a FA. Caleb Joseph is solid (2.2) and will have 4 years of control left, but will be 30 and not getting better. Chance Cisco just missed BA's top 100 prospects but doesn't project to be anything special, and many scouts doubt that his defense will ever be good enough. Rays. Curt Casali (2.1) will be in his 3rd year at age 28. Rene Rivera (1.2), who could still win back his starting job, will have 1 year left at age 32, and will need a bounce-back year with his framing just to approach average. Twins. J.R. Murphy (2.1) will be into his 3rd year, at age 25. Obviously, how he does in his first year as a starter may move them up or down, but the former is likelier. Angels. Like the Twins, they have a young cost-controlled OK guy coming off a rookie season, Carlos Perez (1.9). Their problem is that they have the worst farm system in MLB, no redundant depth anywhere, and hence only one way to improve themselves at a position: trade Mike Trout. Set:
Blue Jays. Russell Martin (4.0) for 3 more years. Indians. Yan Gomes (2.5, but they'll hope he bounces back to 3.5+ after a major off year) for 3 -5 years. Royals. Salvador Perez (2.5) for 4 years. Surplus:
Yankees. They have McCann (2.3) signed for 3 or 4 more years, and it's quite possible that Sanchez (2.5) will be so good as a rookie backup that they decide to trade him to fill a need. Mariners. Barring an injury, they’ll have probably picked up Chris Iannetta’s (3.3) option, and Mike Zunino (2.7) is good enough to start for a lot of clubs, and will have three years of control left. Given how many teams just in the AL would love a young catcher with All-Star upside, it's going to be hard to justify keeping both guys.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 4, 2016 9:49:55 GMT -5
I'm not sure at what you made the assumption that I was referring to the past when I'm clearly talking about the future but you need to stop making assumptions about what people say. Scouting and player evaluations not sabermetrics are going to dictate the road the Sox chose to take at this point. My point is that it's not set in concrete that Vazquez will be considered more valuable than Swihart.
You also continue to use Vazquez pitch framing numbers from the year before last as a benchmark when it's pretty widely stated that the umpires have tightened the reigns on that. I'm also pretty sure that the umpires are well aware of Christian's prowess.
I'm also not sure why you continue to assume that Swihart's defense last year is what we can expect over the course of his career. Will he be as good as Vazquez ? Unlikely. Will the difference in their defense value be greater or less than their values offensively? That's where the Sox will make their call in spite you your insistence on freezing time.
One other point regarding your last post. The general concepts you espouse may be true but when you have a seller's market and a commodity with several suitors, you can pretty much throw out all of that. If the Sox feel Swihart is more Valuable, Vazquez will be traded assuming they chose not to keep both.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 4, 2016 10:17:36 GMT -5
I'm not saying CV should not start when he's healthy. He probably should. All I'm saying if/when that happens, I don't want the Sox to say, "well CV is good to go, so let's trade Blake". Trade Hanigan or, as you say, let Blake season some more in Pawtucket. The trade/don't trade Swhihart (or CV) discussion has been incomplete, and I don't know why. Hardly anyone accounts for what we could expect to come back in a trade of Swihart. It is frankly weird, it is like everyone thinks we would get an Allen Craig/Joe Kelly type return, which is not reasonable. When talking about the next 10 years of the Sox core, or the value that Swihart represents, there has to be some value given to who would come back in trade. Otherwise, the conversation will stay stagnant and the same points will be made over and over again. It should be a given that Swihart would bring back significant talent. Like a top 50 player, plus a usable major league player, a solid low-minor prospect, and a low-minor lottery ticket or two. Quibble with my example if you want, it really is a guess, but that is not the point. Trading Swihart may or may not hurt the Sox in the short-term, but it is an excellent opportunity to stock up on quality prospects, especially at positions or levels where the Sox are thin. Agree or disagree, but holy heck, don't ignore the potential return, it makes the conversation less than useful. Swihart is currently a slightly-below-average defensive catcher who is slightly above average offensively, but with limited power. He has terrific upside, but for now he has yet to show more than a glimpse of that upside. Now, if you mean a top-50 *prospect*, I'd say that package is a little light--Swihart was top-20 and then played reasonably well in MLB. He was the top catching prospect in baseball and demonstrated why. The Sox have plenty of middling talent at the MLB level, and a LOT of outstanding to elite talent in the minors. The only way trading Swihart makes sense is if they get talent in return that is *likely* to represent a significant upgrade at one or more positions. He's a fair bet to be top-10 or even top-5 in baseball at catcher, arguably the most important defensive position. That means they need to get back a guy in the Seager/Urias/Sano/Lindor/Correa/Gallo echelon, or it's probably not worth it. Alternatively, you package him with another quality prospect like Kopech, an arm like Johnson and/or Kelly, and try to get Gerrit Cole. But what you're talking about is the dreaded "quarter for a dime and three nickels" scenario, which really only makes sense for a small-market team with a lot of holes to fill cheaply, or a team like the Angels who have no minor league system to speak of. The Sox have 4 (!!?? I still can't believe our outrageous fortune) BA top-20s, a guy who could break into that group, or at least top-50, this year (Kopech), and the #12 pick in the draft. Their bullpen is four excellent relievers deep. The rotation is nine deep. Another top-50 prospect and filler doesn't help them.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Mar 4, 2016 10:35:56 GMT -5
This is all very interesting, but I still see no urgent need to trade anyone for a couple reasons.
1. What hole needs to be filled right now that is worth giving up either CV or Swihart?
2. As others have said, is either valued enough to get a return worth sacrificing depth for?
I do see Eric's point though. If Xander and Mookie were both SS's and for some reason neither could move to another position, I'd strongly consider dealing one of them to maximize value. But catching is a position that tends to wear on you more as a season goes on, so for the moment I really like the idea of depth and keeping everyone fresh while it all sorts out.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 4, 2016 10:37:44 GMT -5
Ah OK, so Farrell checks all the sabermetric results before making out a lineup and his coaches or personal opinions don't come into consideration. The fact that a pitcher has a new pitch, a batter a new approach, a player in plus or minus condition has nothing to do with decisions. It's exactly that attitude that Henry was addressing, it's total BS. Ah OK, Swihart is the most sought after but Vazquez the better option. In effect, what you are saying is that the Sox are one of the only teams capable of determining who is the best option. Imagine what Vazquez would fetch if only the other teams were capable of doing statistical analysis. Swihart or Vazquez is not written in stone no matter how much you wish were the case. I said "are or have been" to emphasize a meaning of "are." Everything you name is a new development that would not show up in the stats a player already had put up. I'm with you 100% about the need for a scout to tell you how much better or worse all of that might make a player. But to ask a scout who was more valuable last year, player X or player Y? That's hilariously wrong (and if you have any doubt about that, Cafardo still asks them). It was scouts who thought Danny Cater was a good first basemen. It's their job to tell you how good a player's skills are, and crucially, how those skills are likely to change in the future. It's not their job to figure out how those skills contribute to perceived performance, let alone total value. Front offices composed of guys with only scouting backgrounds got that painfully, painfully wrong for years, as any Sox fan should know. Re the actual value versus trade value: no, it's not that the Sox are the only team capable of figuring out the actual value. But consider the GM who trades for CV and gives us his actual value. First, he's pilloried by the local media and fans for insanely overpaying. Then he has to sit privately and watch while Vazquez takes 0.30 off of every pitcher's ERA ... the catch being that no one is capable of noticing it directly, the way you notice a player hitting a home run or throwing out a runner at second. It can only be pointed out after the fact, and then you have to justify it statistically. It's invisible value, the way Boggs had invisible value by using up fewer notes and giving every good hitting teammate more PA's. If part of a player's value is invisible to media and fans, it's hard for a GM to justify that to them. Every team in MLB that needs a catcher will give us full value for Swihart. Most will not give us full value for CV -- a few of them, possibly, because they don't yet trust the pitch framing numbers, but the rest because they have to keep their jobs and the perception of a trade will be more important to them than the actuality. Trading a player with visible value for invisible value, and then seeing the team win fewer games even if your own metrics show you made the team better through the trade -- that's a hard sell to media, fans, and certainly to some owners. If Swihart projected to be better than a healthy CV it would be a horrible dilemma. But fortunately, he's not quite that good, at least not yet. And of course CV's health is still a wild card. I agree 100%...it's not that other teams don't recognize defensive value, it's that the market routinely discounts it in both trade and salary value. Even Jason Heyward's huge contract is still a major "value" underpay, because he's a 5-6 WAR player, but mostly because of his defense. It's easier to quantify defense these days, but human nature will always put greater value on positive measurements (quantifiable, countable outcomes like hits, walks, HR) than negative ones (especially hypothetical projections like "run prevention"). Vazquez will probably never net more than half of his real value in return, while Swihart's offense may actually *increase* the return relative to real value. Personally, I don't want to see either traded for at least a year and a half, if ever. But Swihart almost assuredly will bring back a lot more.
|
|
|