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)
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 15, 2019 10:05:04 GMT -5
Yeah, I think it all comes down to whether one believes in Swihart or not. Varitek went to the superbowl with Swihart and they seem to be close. He's one guy who believes in him. If the Sox keep Swihart around and play him, he would have been at the same age Varitek took off in his career in Boston. Pros: His buddy says he's good Cons: All the objective evidence
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 15, 2019 10:51:45 GMT -5
Varitek did break out at 27. However, he and Swihart had a similar number of plate appearances at 26, and did not have similar results. Also, and I can't stress this enough - absolutely nobody was questioning in 1997 whether Varitek was a catcher and talking nonsense like "maybe he could play second base or the outfield or wherever else!" Pitchers loved throwing to him. The **negative** view on him at that point would've been something like "at worst, a platoon starter; the arm's not outstanding, and maybe he won't hit enough to be a first-division borderline All-Star that people thought he was when he was drafted and ends up stuck a part-timer."
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Feb 15, 2019 11:35:54 GMT -5
I guess I will have to agree to disagree with the people who claim "all objective evidence" indicates that Swihart is a bad catcher (or not "good" one). From where I sit all objective evidence indicates he has not been given a legitimate chance to prove that one way or another...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 15, 2019 11:37:39 GMT -5
he has not been given a legitimate chance Which, like... the alternatives were Christian Vazquez and Sandy Leon. We're not talking about the time Jeff Bagwell was blocked by Wade Boggs. I don't know that I'd write him off as "bad," but it seems clear that the Red Sox don't think he's good enough and just holding him while not using him doesn't help his value and it's killed his development.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Feb 15, 2019 11:41:43 GMT -5
he has not been given a legitimate chance Which, like... the alternatives were Christian Vazquez and Sandy Leon. We're not talking about the time Jeff Bagwell was blocked by Wade Boggs. Not only Boggs but the next great Red Sox 3B Scott Cooper!
But then again some people put Boggs like value on Vazquez based on his defensive potential. A potential that he has never seemed to fully realize.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 15, 2019 11:44:44 GMT -5
I guess I will have to agree to disagree with the people who claim "all objective evidence" indicates that Swihart is a bad catcher (or not "good" one). From where I sit all objective evidence indicates he has not been given a legitimate chance to prove that one way or another... That's all we know from a pro career that started in 2011? A lifetime .256/.314/.364 line in almost 600 MLB PAs, and an organization that has repeatedly shown it doesn't like his defense aren't "objective evidence" of anything? He has a track record, and it's bad. I still don't understand why this player is regarded as some kind of unknown quantity. Varitek did break out at 27. However , he and Swihart had a similar number of plate appearances at 26, and did not have similar results. Also, and I can't stress this enough - absolutely nobody was questioning in 1997 whether Varitek was a catcher and talking nonsense like "maybe he could play second base or the outfield or wherever else!" Pitchers loved throwing to him. The **negative** view on him at that point would've been something like "at worst, a platoon starter; the arm's not outstanding, and maybe he won't hit enough to be a first-division borderline All-Star that people thought he was when he was drafted and ends up stuck a part-timer." However, nothing. Not that what you said past that point was wrong, but it's argument that shouldn't even need to be made. It's a data set of one.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 15, 2019 11:52:09 GMT -5
I guess I will have to agree to disagree with the people who claim "all objective evidence" indicates that Swihart is a bad catcher (or not "good" one). From where I sit all objective evidence indicates he has not been given a legitimate chance to prove that one way or another... That's all we know from a pro career that started in 2011? A lifetime .256/.314/.364 line in almost 600 MLB PAs, and an organization that has repeatedly shown it doesn't like his defense aren't "objective evidence" of anything? He has a track record, and it's bad. I still don't understand why this player is regarded as some kind of unknown quantity. That's a little unfair. He has rarely gotten regular at bats in the majors. The one time he did in 2015, he had a 1.5 fWAR season in 84 games. I would not judge any batter's stats when they're playing once a week or less. No one has any idea what Swihart would become if he did get regular plate appearances in the majors. It will likely be with another team that can afford to be patient, but he does look like a good hitter at times, especially for a catcher.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 15, 2019 11:56:41 GMT -5
That's all we know from a pro career that started in 2011? A lifetime .256/.314/.364 line in almost 600 MLB PAs, and an organization that has repeatedly shown it doesn't like his defense aren't "objective evidence" of anything? He has a track record, and it's bad. I still don't understand why this player is regarded as some kind of unknown quantity. That's a little unfair. He has rarely gotten regular at bats in the majors. The one time he did in 2015, he had a 1.5 fWAR season in 84 games. No one has any idea what Swihart would become if he did get regular plate appearances in the majors. It will likely be with another team that can afford to be patient, but he does look like a good hitter at times, especially for a catcher. The guy posted a OPS over .800 once, in AA, in 2014. Anyway, we don't know what kind of hitter he is. How would we? There's no way to tell.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 15, 2019 12:00:01 GMT -5
That's a little unfair. He has rarely gotten regular at bats in the majors. The one time he did in 2015, he had a 1.5 fWAR season in 84 games. No one has any idea what Swihart would become if he did get regular plate appearances in the majors. It will likely be with another team that can afford to be patient, but he does look like a good hitter at times, especially for a catcher. The guy posted a OPS over .800 once, in AA, in 2014. Anyway, we don't know what kind of hitter he is. How would we? There's no way to tell. An .800 OPS is insanely good for a catcher. Four catchers in MLB did that last season. The way to tell if he's a good hitter is to let him hit. He lost a lot of time with injuries and a lot of his struggles were likely affected by those. I'm not arguing that the Red Sox have to be the team that sinks or swims with him, but I think you're selling him short.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 15, 2019 12:22:18 GMT -5
The guy posted a OPS over .800 once, in AA, in 2014. Anyway, we don't know what kind of hitter he is. How would we? There's no way to tell. An .800 OPS is insanely good for a catcher. Four catchers in MLB did that last season. The way to tell if he's a good hitter is to let him hit. He lost a lot of time with injuries and a lot of his struggles were likely affected by those. I'm not arguing that the Red Sox have to be the team that sinks or swims with him, but I think you're selling him short. Not when it's his high water mark, and it came half a decade ago two levels removed from the majors.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 15, 2019 12:46:35 GMT -5
An .800 OPS is insanely good for a catcher. Four catchers in MLB did that last season. The way to tell if he's a good hitter is to let him hit. He lost a lot of time with injuries and a lot of his struggles were likely affected by those. I'm not arguing that the Red Sox have to be the team that sinks or swims with him, but I think you're selling him short. Not when it's his high water mark, and it came half a decade ago two levels removed from the majors. Right, he missed a lot of time. Also, it was .840, not .800. And the next season he was in the majors with a 93 wRC+ which is also very decent for a rookie catcher. Then the next season he broke his ankle in LF and it basically ruined 2016 and 2017 for him. And he was barely used in 2018, making that 3 straight years of not getting enough time to fully develop. It's a little bit sad. But it's certainly not a settled question. He gets an incomplete, not an F.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 15, 2019 15:09:28 GMT -5
Sandy Leon hit .095/.167/.164 in the second half last year, with 3 RBI in 128 plate appearances. RBI is kind of a silly stat in that someone who has 85 can definitely be a lot more productive than someone with 130, but only getting THREE in that lineup over half a season definitely says something.
I don't really care how good he is as a receiver, that's hard to keep on your team, especially as the backup for another defense-first catcher. And if the Red Sox aren't sure that Blake Swihart is better overall than him and also aren't convinced he's a catcher, then trying to maximize value for him seems sorta like wishful thinking.
So I'm not usually one for hot takes, but I'm gonna hot take here: The Red Sox don't think Swihart is good but are paralyzed by their fear that they might be wrong. They're not comfortable dumping him at his current value (which is nothing-ish), but also not comfortable letting him play. So they're in the same position they were a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 16, 2019 11:20:20 GMT -5
So I'm not usually one for hot takes, but I'm gonna hot take here: The Red Sox don't think Swihart is good but are paralyzed by their fear that they might be wrong. They're not comfortable dumping him at his current value (which is nothing-ish), but also not comfortable letting him play. So they're in the same position they were a year ago. It just seems an incredibly poor use of a scarce resource (a major roster spot) to carry three catchers. I realize that they won the World Series doing just that, but still...
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 16, 2019 16:19:50 GMT -5
If Sweihart is a lessor defensive light, how much does his catching harm the pitching staff? More than his offensive production is superior to Leon? Vasquez?
IMO the decision will be made based on relative return offered than any offensive/defensive mathematics.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Feb 16, 2019 17:05:15 GMT -5
It just seems an incredibly poor use of a scarce resource (a major roster spot) to carry three catchers. I realize that they won the World Series doing just that, but still... Guess it is time to trade Leon
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Feb 16, 2019 20:47:07 GMT -5
Trade Leon for some al dente pasta (someone will love the game calling, framing, defense).. and trade Swihart as well. Swihart might have promise left but he does not have a solid position. He is not a good catcher by rep...maybe our fault,.. and is not as good as Holt at any other position infield or outfield.
Let's get/call up a sub for Vazquez and get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 16, 2019 20:55:57 GMT -5
Not that I am comparing the two players but I clearly remember the "for a bag of balls" trade talk when Mike Lowell was arriving in the Beckett trade. Sometimes the "past is prologue."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 16, 2019 22:32:25 GMT -5
I feel like the downside of Swihart and Leon tandum is just too great. Blake caught 14 games last year (43 the year prior). Leon got 14 hits last year (okay 47, but most concentrated in a 6 week hot streak). Vazquez still has upside, reasonable control and was just fine in a WS domination. I'm fine keeping Blake to see if he is a GUY but I get the keep leon for pitchers sentiment. I will not understand trading Vazquez. Agreed. All three catchers have flaws, but Vazquez seems the most steady all around. If we can’t find any type of value for Swihart or León, then I’d keep all three, platoon Swihart, and trade Nuñez. Maybe I’m nuts, but that scenario actually appeals to me the most. I do agree that keeping all three, finding some way to create value for Swihart, and removing Nunez’s redundancy (and getting Lin in there), has serious merit. FTHW’s point about Swihart’s inadequacy is fair to me. I get it. To me, I see a C who put up a 131 wRC+ in AA after just turning 22 that April, and who held his own against MLB pitching the following year with a 93 wRC+ at just 23. Both are age-advanced, especially for a C. Subsequent defensive issues resulted in his move to LF and a gruesome ankle injury that renders the two following years fairly useless in terms of evaluating his performance. At 23, he put up 1.6 fWAR in just over a half-season, or half of a 3-WAR year. That’s *good*, i.e., better than average. He has a strong arm and good pop times (tied for 6th for 2b throw velocity, 85.7 mph; 12th for pop time of 1.97 seconds. *Both* are markedly better than Vazquez, at 80.5, 2.06; Leon has the same pop time but less arm, faster transfer). So he HAS some good to plus skills for the position (https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/poptime). In very limited time last year, he put up 0.7 blocking runs (Tucker Barnhardt led the league with 3.6, albeit in 9x as many chances), and Swihart also had positive framing value, although again low because of few chances. See BP:https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1899588 All of this is to say, I think jimed may be right. There are certainly some positive indicators there. The Sox are in go-for-it mode, so they’re likely to be very risk-averse. There is *objective* evidence to show that Swihart is actually *good* at some of the defensive aspects of catching. And, this is with a prolonged stretch of arrested development due to injury and inconsistent playing time. I didn’t look up catcher ERA, because it’s a SSS and influenced by pitcher preference (eg, Sale likes throwing to León), but Swihart certainly may have significant game mgmt/sequencing issues that reduce his defensive value. But, again, that is probably significantly affected by time away and lack of experience; he started catching only as a Sr in HS. Offensively, there is, I think, fair evidence to suggest that he has real potential. His performance pre-injury was quite good, especially given his age advancement.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Feb 17, 2019 2:40:50 GMT -5
Just seems like Sox did not want to trade him at his peak value, because of his hitting potential. Vazquez was one year-plus ahead of him in the system, and he had most everyone raving about his defensive abilities -- he was gonna be the next Molina. It was the fact that most everyone felt he had above average hitting abilities, and so deciding to trade him because the Sox already had Vazquez was deemed risky because Swihart had hitting abilities that most catchers didn't. The 'win now' situation, and an unsteady pitching roster made keeping Vazquez a very sensible thing to do, and so Swihart ended up in left field, where he got injured. That injury seemed to affect him for most of two years, and supposedly it wasn't until Winter of 2017 that Swihart reportedly seemed to feel 100% healthy again, and had his legs pain-free to where he could comfortably hit again. However he was now third on the depth chart at that time. His development has been stalled by the injury, obviously, but also heavily stunted by the obvious defensive prowess of his competition: Leon and Vazquez. Each of them has had one stellar season of offense, surrounded by years of inept offense.
The whole situation is a convoluted mess, and it will be very interesting to see how the situation plays out, and what Cora and DD decide to do.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Feb 17, 2019 10:38:06 GMT -5
I’m anxious to see how this plays out. While we did the 3 catcher thing last year I don’t know if we go down that road again. I don’t know what type of RP or prospects they could bring back either. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the timing of the Vazquez extension essentially take the AAV up over the draft penalty number?
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Feb 17, 2019 11:51:18 GMT -5
I’m anxious to see how this plays out. While we did the 3 catcher thing last year I don’t know if we go down that road again. I don’t know what type of RP or prospects they could bring back either. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the timing of the Vazquez extension essentially take the AAV up over the draft penalty number? Last year the Red Sox went over by 2.5M, pretty much exact difference between what they actually paid Vazquez and his inflated AAV number. That extension stunk, or at best was really perplexing. When they gave it to him they knew they were going to be up against taxes these two years and what they got out of it was 2 million aav savings in 2021 and an option year for his age 31 season. Nothing in 2017 showed he was worth the extension either, he was bad the whole season expect for blooping a million hits to shallow right field in August.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 17, 2019 12:23:49 GMT -5
I’m anxious to see how this plays out. While we did the 3 catcher thing last year I don’t know if we go down that road again. I don’t know what type of RP or prospects they could bring back either. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the timing of the Vazquez extension essentially take the AAV up over the draft penalty number? Last year the Red Sox went over by 2.5M, pretty much exact difference between what they actually paid Vazquez and his inflated AAV number. That extension stunk. I don't know that this is correct. He signed a one-year, $1.43M deal in January to avoid arb. Then the extension he signed on March 24 was for 2019-2021 with an option for 2022. Cot's, at least, had him counting for his actual salary with the extension kicking in for his AAV the following year. EDIT: Spotrac and Cot's both have his AAV this year as $4,516,667, which is his salary for 2019-2021 plus the $250k buyout, divided by three.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 18, 2019 2:36:48 GMT -5
FWIW, Swihart also had very good selectivity/contact numbers prior to his injury. As a rookie (2015), his O-Sw and Z-Sw were 32% and 65%. So he was good (not quite outstanding, which would be under 30%) at avoiding chasing pitches outside the zone, but maybe not aggressive enough on pitches IN the zone (65% is pretty low). By contrast (and this is simply meant as an example of an outstanding, selective contact hitter who drives the ball), Jose Ramirez is a career 25%/64%. In Ramirez’s rookie year (266 PA), 2014, he was 30%/67%. Also before injury, Swihart had an 88% Z-contact % (up to 93% in his abbreviated 2017), and 79% contact rate overall, with a 9.7% SwStr rate. Ramirez was 88% Z-cont and 87% overall, with a superb 5.9% SwStr rate. Most of the difference between them seems to be related to chase contact: Ramirez was (and remains) over 80% on contact outside the zone, while Swihart’s been mid-60s. Of note, Swihart’s selectivity and contact rates across the board were improving in his second year; he’ll never be an elite contact hitter like Ramirez, but he looked like he was *at least on track to be a very patient, selective hitter with an above-average to plus (Switch-hitting) hit tool* and gap power that could become over-the-fence power with experience.
Again, I mention Ramirez in particular because he’s an elite hitter (a “gold standard”) with fairly similar “style” to Swihart, particularly early in development. He’s always been an all-fields (pull-C-oppo breakdown of basically 40/30/30 throughout the minors) LD hitter (he’s basically a career 20/40/40 guy in MLB LD/GB/FB...he hit GB a bit more in the minors, but not strikingly so) with good selectivity and “gap” power, and no real GB vs FB predilection. Swihart never had, and never will have (almost nobody does) Ramirez’s pure contact ability. BUT, he did have many other similar hitting characteristics. Swihart’s age-22 season in AA looks a LOT like Ramirez’s age-21 in AAA. Yeah, Ramirez was REALLY age-advanced, but the point is more that their lines were quite similar across the board (outside of Ramirez’s ridiculously low K rate)...and *that continued in MLB*. OK, hey hit a few more FB in the minors than Ramirez, but not shockingly so. He was improving in his second year...walk rate shot up, k rate dropped, selectivity improved...and he’s spent the past two years struggling to get back. I *absolutely* think the worsened performance results, contact/selectivity, etc are almost completely related to lost time (rust) and being bounced around, not to mention limited/inconsistent reps last year. I find it *very* hard to believe that his skills vanished. They simply need regular use to hone.
I don’t (obviously) think Swihart will become Ramirez as a hitter. But I DO think that Swihart’s development along a *similar* path was derailed and arrested by misuse and poor management. I’m convinced that there’s still a dangerous hitter in there, and he needs regular playing time to become just that. The tools are all still there. He’s absolutely, in my mind, worth taking a risk on by trading Vazquez and splitting time with León. I genuinely don’t see C offensive production sinking this ship; Vazquez wasn’t all that superior to León last year, and they won the WS. Swihart has both the defensive and offensive tools. They won a WS with Salty behind the plate. Swihart needs a shot. As jimed said, they seem paralyzed by fear of him failing, but just as terrified that he’s going to turn into exactly the player they thought he was before they screwed things up. Embrace the risk. Get the rewards.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Feb 18, 2019 10:27:34 GMT -5
Yeah I think your last sentences, echoing prior comments, sum it up. The theme is that limited opportunity is constraining Swihart's offensive performance. Swihart hits much better with regular at bats. But where will the possible remedy surface in Boston? If Vazquez is kept, he will likely, and should, catch most of the time....still have the issue. If Leon is kept instead, Swihart probably has the better chance. Vazquez at least brings something back on trade. As you say, is it time to take a risk in keeping Swihart at the expense of one of the other guys?
Depends on what is offered in trade and so far nothing tasty has been served.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Feb 18, 2019 10:49:50 GMT -5
Last year the Red Sox went over by 2.5M, pretty much exact difference between what they actually paid Vazquez and his inflated AAV number. That extension stunk. I don't know that this is correct. He signed a one-year, $1.43M deal in January to avoid arb. Then the extension he signed on March 24 was for 2019-2021 with an option for 2022. Cot's, at least, had him counting for his actual salary with the extension kicking in for his AAV the following year. EDIT: Spotrac and Cot's both have his AAV this year as $4,516,667, which is his salary for 2019-2021 plus the $250k buyout, divided by three. He signed it before the MLB season started, so I think that while it kicked in this year it enveloped that 1.43 and his AAV is 3.75 in 18-21. If they wanted to keep last year at 1.43 they would have had to have signed it after opening day. link link
Edit: one source says all inclusive, a better one says both are separate. So probably the higher number. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|