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.
|
Post by p23w on Oct 18, 2014 18:34:23 GMT -5
One of the subplots that might be brought into this, is whether the Sox will ever have another fulltime DH after Ortiz. I rather doubt it personally, in which case there will be more at bats available, though not necessarily for Vazquez/Swihart. But it does play into the roster construction. I know other posters may see it differently, but I don't think they'll try to replace Ortiz. Agree with the general idea but having the off duty catcher as the DH is rather restricting. ITA. I'm hoping for Ryan Zimmerman to be the DH that replaces Ortiz. I like the idea of both Vazquez and Swihart platooning, pinch hitting and on the rare occasion playing Swihart at another position. The off season tea leaf reading has officially begun.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 18, 2014 23:22:55 GMT -5
I find it amazing that the consensus here is already that Vasquez is the best defensive catcher in baseball but when I said Swihart MIGHT have a better career than Varitek it's nearly the same consensus against that idea. Swihart probably makes the majors 3 years earlier and Varitek was a career DRS of -3. Overall, Veritek was about average defensively and I think we should be able to have consensus that Swihart will be well above average defensively. Look at his numbers so far and tell me he isn't way above average defensively by every data point we know so far ( just about ). And Swihart looks to be a real decent hitting catcher, in an era of pretty crappy hitting catchers.
If Swihart isn't a multiple year allstar I will burn my shiny new Portland Seadogs hat.
Varitek's career WAR, is 24.3 over 14 seasons. He averaged 1.74 WAR a year. (EDIT)
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 18, 2014 23:31:38 GMT -5
I find it amazing that the consensus here is already that Vasquez is the best defensive catcher in baseball but when I said Swihart MIGHT have a better career than Varitek it's nearly the same consensus against that idea. Swihart probably makes the majors 3 years earlier and Varitek was a career DRS of -3. Overall, Veritek was about average defensively and I think we should be able to have consensus that Swihart will be well above average defensively. Look at his numbers so far and tell me he isn't way above average defensively by every data point we know so far ( just about ). And Swihart looks to be a real decent hitting catcher, in an era of pretty crappy hitting catchers. If Swihart isn't a multiple year allstar I will burn my shiny new Portland Seadogs hat. If Boston is forced to trade a top prospect for that top of the rotation pitcher over the winter, He's IMO the guy who would end up being the guy used as the main chip. Boston more than likely (rightly so) allow Betts to be involved as he's the speedy, top of the order bat the team dearly needs and they now have Vazquez who might not have the ceiling of Swihart, but has the glove. Sometimes other priorities need to be looked at Lavarnwayguy when moving kids, or all of them do and IMO Swihart is the one whom the team needs to be pushing in a deal this winter **if** the FO insists on acquiring a front line SP via trade, now only if they go that route of course.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 18, 2014 23:31:40 GMT -5
Swihart is the stud. If someone gets traded some day it's probably Vasquez.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 19, 2014 3:15:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 19, 2014 7:46:29 GMT -5
Swihart is the stud. If someone gets traded some day it's probably Vasquez. You've made that clear, yes.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 19, 2014 12:15:32 GMT -5
As far as which one of these guys SHOULD be traded, I don't think either of them should be until the Red Sox have actually gotten to a point where they're both on the MLB roster, both established as above average players, and no arrangement can be found to use them both in a reasonable efficient way. Until that situation actually manifests itself there's no particular reason to trade either. On the other hand I don't think you can put either one off limits in a trade either. If someone is offering a really favorable deal then go for it, although it's unlikely that will actually happen. In other words, trade speculation is stupid (a shocking revelation, I know).
One other point about Vazquez and Swihart regarding pitch framing, I don't think it's an accident that Vazquez is so damn good at it. Vazquez didn't invent pitch framing, he had people who taught him exactly to do it best. Presumably the same people are teaching the same things to Swihart. Obviously physical ability comes into play so you can't assume he's going to be as good as Vazquez, but the difference between the two may end up being fairly marginal. And you can apply the same logic to baseball as a whole. Pitch framing isn't necessarily a new thing but the precise understanding and valuation of it is. More teams are going to be teaching this stuff to catchers from the moment they're signed. Over time this is going to decrease Vazquez's value. I don't know how much, but I'd bet on it happening to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 19, 2014 12:20:02 GMT -5
The catchers in the Little League World Series this year were pitch framing like crazy. It was almost annoying because it was so exaggerated.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 19, 2014 12:25:21 GMT -5
The catchers in the Little League World Series this year were pitch framing like crazy. It was almost annoying because it was so exaggerated. This isn't new for youth baseball. I've umpired since college on and off, and catchers have always tried to do that. Probably start a bit younger now perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 19, 2014 13:13:24 GMT -5
I find it amazing that the consensus here is already that Vasquez is the best defensive catcher in baseball but when I said Swihart MIGHT have a better career than Varitek it's nearly the same consensus against that idea. Defense is much, much easier to evaluate and project than hitting. We know guys like Iglesias and Bradley and Marrero and Vazquez are going to be elite defenders with a much higher degree of confidence. Fielding is less of an interactive activity than hitting (i.e., there's not really an opponent) insofar as batted balls are relatively consistent between the majors and the minors. Hitting, on the other hand, is probably the hardest area of the game to project because you won't have seen a prospect versus major-league-caliber pitching, and the game theory element is so important. As such, elite defenders are almost always higher-floor prospects than elite hitters. There are plenty of hitters who scouted well and put up gaudy minor league numbers who nonetheless ended up busting at hitters, but many fewer guys who looked like elite fielders as prospects but ended up struggling defensively in the majors. In this specific case, I think it's fair to say that Swihart has the higher ceiling, but that Vazquez has the higher floor.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Oct 19, 2014 13:23:52 GMT -5
Swihart is the stud. If someone gets traded some day it's probably Vasquez. The counterargument here though, is that Vazquez' value is at least slightly underappreciated in the trade market and wouldn't fetch back as much as he probably should. Swihart on the other hand...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 19, 2014 14:05:42 GMT -5
Swihart is the stud. If someone gets traded some day it's probably Vasquez. The counterargument here though, is that Vazquez' value is at least slightly underappreciated in the trade market and wouldn't fetch back as much as he probably should. Swihart on the other hand... Yeah, the only reason I'd probably rather trade Swihart than Vazquez is that Swihart's bat is likely to be overrated by a trade partner while Vazquez's framing may be underrated. You could see Swihart as the centerpiece for a guy like Heyward or Donaldson, but you probably couldn't swap him out for Vazquez in those imaginary packages. Swihart is probably the better player/prospect, but the actual gap between them is smaller than the perceived gap, as has been nicely illustrated in this thread. (This, by the way, is the same general logic for why I'd rather trade Cespedes than move someone like Nava, Victorino, or Craig.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 19, 2014 14:16:18 GMT -5
(Sarasoxer post) Because, if they turn out to be all they can be, a full time Swihart plus what you could get in a trade for Vazquez or a full time Vazquez plus what you can get in a trade for Swihart is worth more than a Swihart/Vazquez platoon no matter what you do with the other while one is catching. Both would have maximum return as full time catchers. This is the Mookie argument again. Have to trade him because he loses value moving him off his position. It's all a matter of who wants to give what up for him. It's not like selling gold for a set price. It is, but it isn't, and the differences are key. Mookie projected to have solid defensive value and (position-neutral) very good offensive value. The idea was always, rather than lose the defensive value by moving him to the outfield, trade him for a comparable outfielder. E.g., if the Cardinals didn't have Wong, trade him for Taveras. One top ten prospect for another; both teams benefit because Mookie is more valuable to the Cards than to us. You can see what happened. That theoretical comparable OF who's as valuable as Mookie (better bat, can't play a +5 2B), and whose team is willing to trade him, doesn't exist. You wouldn't trade Mookie's bat for Taveras's. (The other thought, make Mookie the centerpiece of a Stanton trade, might still be in play, but a) we have so much talent that a Stanton trade without Mookie is still feasible, and b) it's not clear that Mookie for Stanton even-up is a good idea. You might get more WAR from Stanton over the next 6 years, but you'd also pay vastly more money, and while both guys have skills perfect for a key offensive role, I'm not sure that great leadoff hitters are any less rare than great cleanup guys.) Swihart projects to have tremendous defensive value and solid to good absolute offensive value. So there's no projection where he's worth keeping at another position. If his bat blossoms like Mookie's and he demonstrates that at the MLB level, he's become a guy who can be traded for, e.g., Stanton without a great deal more, or the centerpiece of a Sale trade, etc.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 19, 2014 18:51:46 GMT -5
The counterargument here though, is that Vazquez' value is at least slightly underappreciated in the trade market and wouldn't fetch back as much as he probably should. Swihart on the other hand... Yeah, the only reason I'd probably rather trade Swihart than Vazquez is that Swihart's bat is likely to be overrated by a trade partner while Vazquez's framing may be underrated. You could see Swihart as the centerpiece for a guy like Heyward or Donaldson, but you probably couldn't swap him out for Vazquez in those imaginary packages. Swihart is probably the better player/prospect, but the actual gap between them is smaller than the perceived gap, as has been nicely illustrated in this thread. (This, by the way, is the same general logic for why I'd rather trade Cespedes than move someone like Nava, Victorino, or Craig.) Actually, I thought your #1 reason (which argument you simply beat me to making) was that Cespedes as a defender has less value to us than to almost anyone. A LF who has better than average speed but runs such bad routes that he has slightly below average range, but is a mild plus defender because of a cannon arm - as you pointed out, that guy needs to be in the biggest possible LF, not the smallest.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 19, 2014 19:45:47 GMT -5
This is the Mookie argument again. Have to trade him because he loses value moving him off his position. It's all a matter of who wants to give what up for him. It's not like selling gold for a set price. It is, but it isn't, and the differences are key. Mookie projected to have solid defensive value and (position-neutral) very good offensive value. The idea was always, rather than lose the defensive value by moving him to the outfield, trade him for a comparable outfielder. E.g., if the Cardinals didn't have Wong, trade him for Taveras. One top ten prospect for another; both teams benefit because Mookie is more valuable to the Cards than to us. You can see what happened. That theoretical comparable OF who's as valuable as Mookie (better bat, can't play a +5 2B), and whose team is willing to trade him, doesn't exist. You wouldn't trade Mookie's bat for Taveras's. (The other thought, make Mookie the centerpiece of a Stanton trade, might still be in play, but a) we have so much talent that a Stanton trade without Mookie is still feasible, and b) it's not clear that Mookie for Stanton even-up is a good idea. You might get more WAR from Stanton over the next 6 years, but you'd also pay vastly more money, and while both guys have skills perfect for a key offensive role, I'm not sure that great leadoff hitters are any less rare than great cleanup guys.) Swihart projects to have tremendous defensive value and solid to good absolute offensive value. So there's no projection where he's worth keeping at another position. If his bat blossoms like Mookie's and he demonstrates that at the MLB level, he's become a guy who can be traded for, e.g., Stanton without a great deal more, or the centerpiece of a Sale trade, etc. I argued continually regarding Mookie, that everyone can come up with tons of trades that look and sound equal, but unless there are actually two teams that want it, they don't happen. Like I said above, you can't just sell Mookie or Swihart for a specific MSRP. And in absence of a fair trade being offered in which we're not losing years of control and paying a lot more salary, I'd rather use Mookie at a less valuable defensive position than just insist on trading him. Given that prospect for prospect trades almost never happen, I'd keep the elite bat that I think he'll have even if he's less valuable defensively. Especially after last year and looking around baseball at how hitting is disappearing. We'd probably be better off making room for our best players at their best positions.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 19, 2014 20:10:19 GMT -5
The catchers in the Little League World Series this year were pitch framing like crazy. It was almost annoying because it was so exaggerated. This isn't new for youth baseball. I've umpired since college on and off, and catchers have always tried to do that. Probably start a bit younger now perhaps. Confirm that. I started umpiring in the 70's and the kids were doing it then. Not sure when pitch framing started, but the stat guys didn't invent it. They sure are paying more attention to it these days though.
|
|
|