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.
Catcher in 2019 (4/16: Swihart DFA'd)
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Mar 23, 2019 21:39:05 GMT -5
With their trip to Arizona, could the Sox be delivering a backup catcher to the Cubs? The Cubs are still looking for a backup catcher. Or do the Cubs just wait for the DFA's to hit the wire. Rene Rivera just hit the open market from the Giants.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 23, 2019 22:57:34 GMT -5
At the Winter Meetings the Cubs were pretty open about what they wanted. They said specifically that they realized last year that they need a catcher who's strong point is game calling. Leon fits that prefectly but I don't know what the Cubbies have to offer on the other side that would benefit the Sox. I've said all along I wanted the Sox to trade Leon and Workman or Hembree for a better reliever and a decent 40 man chip.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 24, 2019 17:13:57 GMT -5
Evan Drellich is reporting that the Sox have placed Sandy Leon on waivers so Swihart is now the backup catcher.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 24, 2019 18:04:03 GMT -5
I think the Sox are keeping CV and Swihart. They will end up designating Leon for assignment. Teams seem to be set at catcher. Credit to you. You ended up right. I guess they really want to give Swihart the at bats. I don't know....I guess they felt their hands were tied. I think this qualifies as a lack of planning from the FO. Leon is worth more than a bag of balls.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 24, 2019 18:18:04 GMT -5
They can still trade him before the claim goes through. Maybe this is to force the Cubs' hand.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 24, 2019 18:19:20 GMT -5
I think the Sox are keeping CV and Swihart. They will end up designating Leon for assignment. Teams seem to be set at catcher. Credit to you. You ended up right. I guess they really want to give Swihart the at bats. I don't know....I guess they felt their hands were tied. I think this qualifies as a lack of planning from the FO. Leon is worth more than a bag of balls. I believe they're hoping he'll clear. That seems unlikely, and I believe (although I'm not sure) that they can withdraw the waivers and then make a deal with the claiming team. I'm pretty sure that a DFA and a place-on-waivers are two different moves. A DFA is also, I think, placing on waivers "for the purpose of giving an unconditional release." Without that last clause, it works differently.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 24, 2019 18:25:18 GMT -5
They can still trade him before the claim goes through. Maybe this is to force the Cubs' hand. Yeah, I think if someone with a higher claim position claims him, the Sox can withdraw the waiver and tell the Cubs (and anyone else who has been dicking then around in trade talks), hey, the So-and-so's want him. It establishes the identity of at least one other club who does.
Meanwhile, I'm with those who think this is the right move, and will like it as long as they get an interesting prospect for Leon. Marco Hernandez V2.0, IOW.
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Mar 24, 2019 18:47:11 GMT -5
While I've listened and assuaged to the rational for keeping Leon, I haven't agreed with it. This latest outcome seems (with all due respect) like a ray of lucidity conserning the abilities of Leon as an actual ball player - as compared to a de facto pitching coach/pitch caller.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 24, 2019 19:19:55 GMT -5
They can still trade him before the claim goes through. Maybe this is to force the Cubs' hand. Yeah, I think if someone with a higher claim position claims him, the Sox can withdraw the waiver and tell the Cubs (and anyone else who has been dicking then around in trade talks), hey, the So-and-so's want him. It establishes the identity of at least one other club who does. Meanwhile, I'm with those who think this is the right move, and will like it as long as they get an interesting prospect for Leon. Marco Hernandez V2.0, IOW.
I'm fairly certain that all waivers are now irrevocable. The now-dead trade waivers were the revocable ones. The only waivers left are outright assignment waivers and unconditional release waivers. Both are irrevocable. In other words, if he gets claimed, he's gone, and they're not going to be trading him unless he clears waivers.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Mar 24, 2019 19:57:02 GMT -5
I'm happy we kept Swihart and hope he does fulfill at least some of his promise, but really I think this is more about Vazquez showing himself to be our true #1 catcher than it is about either Leon or Swihart.
If a few months from now you realize you made the wrong move you probably don't have to give up much to trade for the next Sandy Leon. Hell, you probably could swing a minor trade for Sandy Leon himself. Maybe even get him a police escort to his first game back.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 24, 2019 20:25:16 GMT -5
I'm happy we kept Swihart and hope he does fulfill at least some of his promise, but really I think this is more about Vazquez showing himself to be our true #1 catcher than it is about either Leon or Swihart. If a few months from now you realize you made the wrong move you probably don't have to give up much to trade for the next Sandy Leon. Hell, you probably could swing a minor trade for Sandy Leon himself. Maybe even get him a police escort to his first game back. Won't be necessary. They already have Juan Centeno who is known for defense but can't hit. Cora is very familiar with him. He was the backup catcher on the 2017 Astros team that Cora was on.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Mar 24, 2019 21:05:20 GMT -5
Today we said goodbye to Gronk. Tonight we say goodbye to Sandy - I'll remember his surprisingly great offense a few years ago, and his great contributions to last year's team in his impact on the pitching staff.
So - we move forward with Christian and Blake - two home growns...not unhappy about this.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Mar 24, 2019 21:48:52 GMT -5
Credit to you. You ended up right. I guess they really want to give Swihart the at bats. I don't know....I guess they felt their hands were tied. I think this qualifies as a lack of planning from the FO. Leon is worth more than a bag of balls. The thing is, if he clears waivers then that's 29 teams telling you he's not. I'm interested to see how the catching situation shakes out with Vazquez and Swihart in the mix. With Leon gone, I'm leaning toward the idea that the organization doesn't value catcher defense as much as some might have thought. If Swihart hits and Vazquez doesn't, I think Swihart will be the starter (or at least the lead in a 60/40 timeshare) by the All-Star break. I don't know about that but possibly you are right. Some might think he was highly valued to some degree. But if the Sox didn't value defense greatly last year, then why didn't they look to make a move last year to replace Leon before CV came back?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 24, 2019 23:09:41 GMT -5
I think the Sox value defense quite a bit. But there are lots of other reasons to prefer Swihart over Leon: age, hitting, baserunning, and positional flexibility. With the decision to keep 13 pitchers, that last one looms large. Probably not an easy decision, but the right one I believe. This looked like the eventual catching corps a few years ago and it's come to pass.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 24, 2019 23:14:06 GMT -5
Yeah, I think if someone with a higher claim position claims him, the Sox can withdraw the waiver and tell the Cubs (and anyone else who has been dicking then around in trade talks), hey, the So-and-so's want him. It establishes the identity of at least one other club who does. Meanwhile, I'm with those who think this is the right move, and will like it as long as they get an interesting prospect for Leon. Marco Hernandez V2.0, IOW.
I'm fairly certain that all waivers are now irrevocable. The now-dead trade waivers were the revocable ones. The only waivers left are outright assignment waivers and unconditional release waivers. Both are irrevocable. In other words, if he gets claimed, he's gone, and they're not going to be trading him unless he clears waivers. I haven't read anything to that effect. What was reported was that the July 31 trade deadline now applies to all deals, and that the point of this, according to Ken Rosenthal, is "is to protect the competitive integrity of the 162-game regular season, create more certainty for players and force teams to decide earlier whether they are buyers or sellers." That's really reasonable.
Meanwhile, the idea of revocable waivers for fringe guys like Leon is still extremely useful. The union (which first proposed the new trade deadline) would have opposed that; it forces teams to state whether they have an interest. The use of revocable waivers in August, for star players, was a crazy loophole exploitation, and they have now closed it.
Revocable waivers are also a crucial tool for roster manipulation. Let's say your 40-man roster is full, and you need to add a reliever because a guy is going on the DL. The move you'd best like to do is select the contract of a guy, and your second choice is to recall a guy on option. The difference is not, however, worth losing the #40 guy on the roster. You put him on revocable waivers and if he clears, you outright him and select the new guy. If he's claimed, you withdraw him from waivers and recall the guy on option.
Or, you discover that the claiming team likes him even more than you do and you trade him for someone who's not yet 40-man eligible. This 3rd option has now been eliminated after July 31, along with ever other sort of trade.
What we're seeing with Leon is the other roster limit problem that can make revocable waivers useful: when you have more guys out of options than 25.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 25, 2019 6:56:52 GMT -5
For me, I liked Leon and thought he was an asset but that doesn't override the homegrown aspect of two players I've followed since their draft day.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 25, 2019 8:41:52 GMT -5
Deciding you want to ride with Vaz and Swihart is fine, but if you get no return for him...that is bad planning. They should have made that decision over the winter. I refuse to believe not one team could use his services. They waited too long.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 25, 2019 8:50:25 GMT -5
Deciding you want to ride with Vaz and Swihart is fine, but if you get no return for him...that is bad planning. They should have made that decision over the winter. I refuse to believe not one team could use his services. They waited too long. Suppose your team needed a backup catcher. What are you trading for a 30-year-old one who hit .095/.167/.164 in the second half last year? Would you trade, like, a Chris Machamer (ranked 52nd in the system currently) for him? I would not. I think there are fair criticisms with the way the Red Sox handled this situation, but I just don't see how you look at Sandy Leon and think that any team is going to trade a valuable chip for what he offers. Most teams that could use a backup catcher that badly are better served holding onto their lottery tickets and fringy prospects and just signing one of the many good-glove no-hit catchers who are always floating around Triple-A.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 25, 2019 8:55:37 GMT -5
Deciding you want to ride with Vaz and Swihart is fine, but if you get no return for him...that is bad planning. They should have made that decision over the winter. I refuse to believe not one team could use his services. They waited too long. Suppose your team needed a backup catcher. What are you trading for a 30-year-old one who hit .095/.167/.164 in the second half last year? Would you trade, like, a Chris Machamer (ranked 52nd in the system currently) for him? I would not. I think there are fair criticisms with the way the Red Sox handled this situation, but I just don't see how you look at Sandy Leon and think that any team is going to trade a valuable chip for what he offers. Most teams that could use a backup catcher that badly are better served holding onto their lottery tickets and fringy prospects and just signing one of the many good-glove no-hit catchers who are always floating around Triple-A. I wouldn't trade Machamer either, but not even a Workman type? You know no options, might not make team type guy. They waited too long. No big deal, just a little surprising.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 25, 2019 9:10:41 GMT -5
If a team has a) an out-of-options pitcher who b) they don't think will clear waivers and c) that team also needs a backup catcher d) more than a lottery ticket, then maybe? That's kind of threading the needle though. I'd want a specific example.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Mar 25, 2019 9:12:02 GMT -5
I don't think it was bad planning at all. In this market the Sox had very little chance of getting anything of value for Sandy, so they determined his value was to be ready to play in case Vazquez or Swihart got hurt. Now that they're healthy and the season is about to start, he's served his purpose and they can save a bit of money by releasing him.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 25, 2019 10:33:08 GMT -5
I wouldn't trade Machamer either, but not even a Workman type? You know no options, might not make team type guy. They waited too long. No big deal, just a little surprising. If we got that guy in a trade we would have had to cut him too. The waiver wire will tell you if the team missed anything. If he goes unclaimed then there was nothing they could do. If he gets picked up then you can make an argument, depending on who picks him up. I feel we have a weak bullpen compared to other teams. So I guy that one team can't use isn't necessarily a guy we can't use. It's not a big deal overall. Just weird they kept talking about moving a catcher and then just waived him. You can certainly debate what they could get. Maybe the guy ends up getting cut and it's a wash. I think he gets picked up, there just isn't much catching in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Mar 25, 2019 11:03:29 GMT -5
They've been talking about trading a catcher all winter, and Dave has said repeatedly that the market for catchers was slow, they weren't finding the deal they wanted, etc. If they could have gotten something in return for Leon earlier in the offseason, I'm sure they would have...I don't know why you'd assume otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 25, 2019 11:12:09 GMT -5
Deciding you want to ride with Vaz and Swihart is fine, but if you get no return for him...that is bad planning. They should have made that decision over the winter. I refuse to believe not one team could use his services. They waited too long. Suppose your team needed a backup catcher. What are you trading for a 30-year-old one who hit .095/.167/.164 in the second half last year? Would you trade, like, a Chris Machamer (ranked 52nd in the system currently) for him? I would not. I think there are fair criticisms with the way the Red Sox handled this situation, but I just don't see how you look at Sandy Leon and think that any team is going to trade a valuable chip for what he offers. Most teams that could use a backup catcher that badly are better served holding onto their lottery tickets and fringy prospects and just signing one of the many good-glove no-hit catchers who are always floating around Triple-A. And, as much value as people want to put on Leon's defense, this is the market where 30 teams can't find a use for Dallas Keuchel. I don't know how you can assume a demand for any non-star level player, much less the Sandy Leons of the world. You need a team that really values catcher defense, but hasn't found a great defensive catcher of their own yet, AND that team has to actually want to get better, which like half of them don't.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 25, 2019 11:23:35 GMT -5
Deciding you want to ride with Vaz and Swihart is fine, but if you get no return for him...that is bad planning. They should have made that decision over the winter. I refuse to believe not one team could use his services. They waited too long. Suppose your team needed a backup catcher. What are you trading for a 30-year-old one who hit .095/.167/.164 in the second half last year? Would you trade, like, a Chris Machamer (ranked 52nd in the system currently) for him? I would not. I think there are fair criticisms with the way the Red Sox handled this situation, but I just don't see how you look at Sandy Leon and think that any team is going to trade a valuable chip for what he offers. Most teams that could use a backup catcher that badly are better served holding onto their lottery tickets and fringy prospects and just signing one of the many good-glove no-hit catchers who are always floating around Triple-A. I think there is a timing component to the first part of your post. Right now, you could be right. Would it be the same during the winter ? Or how about if some team loses their starting catcher in the first month. They can only deal with the real time situation, so they made their decision. It doesn't seem to be well thought out. Was all 3 catchers in camp injury protection ? They only started shopping him last week, according to reports ??.
|
|
|