|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 30, 2015 11:50:50 GMT -5
However letting Butler go, opened up a 40 man spot and we did get a player for him. Yeah, we got Craig Breslow, who is projected by ZiPS and Steamer to provide half a win BELOW replacement level. I'm not impressed.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 30, 2015 11:53:33 GMT -5
Man, just for cash? What's not to like about this? I mean, it's not like Sandy Leon is a savior here, but this move really takes a good chunk of the edge off the mini-crisis, that's for sure. I'm hoping this works out and Swihart gets as much time as needed in AAA this year to finish off the development. The Dan Butler connection here is kinda amusing after the lamenting of his absence over the last couple days ... I haven't seen any of the Dan Butler lamenting and I am not saying you are Brian, but for those if any that are...think of the problem this way. There is no question that Dan Butler is a better player than Sandy Leon. However letting Butler go, opened up a 40 man spot and we did get a player for him. So the question becomes if there is a player on the 40 man roster that you would ever pair with Leon, and Rosenbaum in a trade to get Butler and cash? For myself anyways with the exception of Layne the answer is absolutely not. In Layne's case, it's probably not. Even in hindsight, letting Butler go looks like a good move. The only question for me is if Lobaton was available and what that would have taken. Lobaton and Leon look like very similar players, although Lobaton is more experienced. Oh, I agree with you on all of that ... that was basically my position all along. In the original thread, there was some small amount of "would be nicer if we still had Butler" conversation going on. I just thought - no matter your position on that - that it was kind of mildly amusing that Dan Butler's presence in Washington was basically because Leon was out of options, which made him easily expendable to the Red Sox, who needed him because they didn't have 40-man space for Butler over the winter.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 30, 2015 11:53:54 GMT -5
The only question for me is if Lobaton was available and what that would have taken. Lobaton and Leon look like very similar players, although Lobaton is more experienced. Not sure why the Nationals would want to trade their backup catcher. They're likely contenders and are probably happy with him as a backup. That's the problem right now - most teams probably don't have extra starting caliber catchers available right now. Even Navarro is DHing for the Blue Jays so they probably don't want to give up the bat. Now the Cubs are considering keeping Castillo as a 3rd catcher.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 30, 2015 13:20:08 GMT -5
For my reference, who would be considered a better player, Leon or Butler?
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Mar 30, 2015 13:33:49 GMT -5
Great get. Leon complements Hanigan well and yet still has some upside. He's right around that age that the late blooming catchers put it all together. Even without that, Leon is still going to be an asset behind the dish, based on reports of his skills.
Now Vazquez can take his time to recover, Swihart can develop and come up when he's ready. Much better feeling about the short-term catching today (as well as it's long term impacts).
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 30, 2015 13:40:24 GMT -5
For my reference, who would be considered a better player, Leon or Butler? Butler is undoubtedly the better hitter, at least right now, while evidence indicates that Leon is the better defensive catcher. Off of minor league numbers he looks like he's quite good. As to who's the better player, I'm going to have to watch Leon play real games before I'd hazard any sort of guess.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 30, 2015 14:13:21 GMT -5
For my reference, who would be considered a better player, Leon or Butler? Preface: I'm a big Butler fan. Story: Washington had them both and let Leon go. Leon looks like a better defensive guy but Butler was a very good receiver with more potential for a higher OBP. If you go by the edict that the primary job of a catcher is to receive the ball (i.e. catch and all that goes with it) then he is probably the better choice. 40 man wise, I would've been glad if they kept Butler and never added Spruill, who I think isn't even legit depth, but I'm not sure that was a choice at the time.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 30, 2015 14:24:34 GMT -5
For my reference, who would be considered a better player, Leon or Butler? Preface: I'm a big Butler fan. Story: Washington had them both and let Leon go. Leon looks like a better defensive guy but Butler was a very good receiver with more potential for a higher OBP. If you go by the edict that the primary job of a catcher is to receive the ball (i.e. catch and all that goes with it) then he is probably the better choice. 40 man wise, I would've been glad if they kept Butler and never added Spruill, who I think isn't even legit depth, but I'm not sure that was a choice at the time. Washington had them both and let Leon go because he was out of options. Butler has one option left IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 30, 2015 15:03:50 GMT -5
The only question for me is if Lobaton was available and what that would have taken. Lobaton and Leon look like very similar players, although Lobaton is more experienced. Not sure why the Nationals would want to trade their backup catcher. They're likely contenders and are probably happy with him as a backup. That's the problem right now - most teams probably don't have extra starting caliber catchers available right now. Even Navarro is DHing for the Blue Jays so they probably don't want to give up the bat. Now the Cubs are considering keeping Castillo as a 3rd catcher. Obviously it would depend on what they were getting in return.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 30, 2015 15:13:12 GMT -5
Not sure why the Nationals would want to trade their backup catcher. They're likely contenders and are probably happy with him as a backup. That's the problem right now - most teams probably don't have extra starting caliber catchers available right now. Even Navarro is DHing for the Blue Jays so they probably don't want to give up the bat. Now the Cubs are considering keeping Castillo as a 3rd catcher. Obviously it would depend on what they were getting in return. Well think about it, what would the Red Sox have taken in a trade for Hanigan a couple weeks ago? They wouldn't even bother listening.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 30, 2015 15:13:25 GMT -5
However letting Butler go, opened up a 40 man spot and we did get a player for him. Yeah, we got Craig Breslow, who is projected by ZiPS and Steamer to provide half a win BELOW replacement level. I'm not impressed. Uhhh no we got Rosenbaum. If you wanted to keep Butler and not sign Breslow, that's your opinion but I don't agree with that at all. For me (Breslow + Rosenbaum + Leon) > Butler. And as a reminder, ZIPS and Steamer are nothing more than models and their results are based only upon the factors input into that model. They do not take into account, Breslow's fatigue from pitching so much in 2013, and his likely recovery a year later. We hashed this through a ton in the Breslow thread, but in general no model that projects the future, is meant to be a truth, crystal ball, or in some cases a realistic expectation of future results.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 30, 2015 15:16:56 GMT -5
Obviously it would depend on what they were getting in return. Well think about it, what would the Red Sox have taken in a trade for Hanigan a couple weeks ago? They wouldn't even bother listening. The Red Sox didn't have a similar player who was out of options they could use as a replacement, but let's take this line of thinking to its' logical conclusion. If Mike Trout were offered for Hanigan the Red Sox would do it. To make your backup catcher "untradable", especially when you have a similar player in your organization makes no sense and I doubt actually happens.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 30, 2015 15:26:31 GMT -5
Well think about it, what would the Red Sox have taken in a trade for Hanigan a couple weeks ago? They wouldn't even bother listening. The Red Sox didn't have a similar player who was out of options they could use as a replacement, but let's take this line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. If Mike Trout were offered for Hanigan the Red Sox would do it. To make your backup catcher "untradable", especially when you have a similar player in your organization makes no sense and I doubt actually happens. If you want to talk reality, we can. No one was going to grossly overpay for our backup catcher, let alone offer Mike Trout.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 30, 2015 15:34:09 GMT -5
This makes the Middlebrooks trade look brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 30, 2015 15:35:03 GMT -5
The Red Sox didn't have a similar player who was out of options they could use as a replacement, but let's take this line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. If Mike Trout were offered for Hanigan the Red Sox would do it. To make your backup catcher "untradable", especially when you have a similar player in your organization makes no sense and I doubt actually happens. If you want to talk reality, we can. No one was going to grossly overpay for our backup catcher, let alone offer Mike Trout. The whole point is that all players are tradable if the trade improves the organization. In this case the Nationals had two similar players and could only keep one. Though Lobaton is more experienced.....if (Player X + Leon) > than Lobaton you would expect the Nationals to make that trade. Player X is obviously far less valuable than Mike Trout.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 30, 2015 16:01:56 GMT -5
If you want to talk reality, we can. No one was going to grossly overpay for our backup catcher, let alone offer Mike Trout. The whole point is that all players are tradable if the trade improves the organization. In this case the Nationals had two similar players and could only keep one. Though Lobaton is more experienced.....if (Player X + Leon) > than Lobaton you would expect the Nationals to make that trade. Player X is obviously far less valuable than Mike Trout. Trying to trade for the backup catcher of the team projected to have the most wins in baseball is an exercise in futility/stupidity. They aren't going to weaken a spot on the team without another team massively overpaying and that isn't going to happen for any backup catcher.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,952
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 30, 2015 16:37:47 GMT -5
According to BP, pitch-framing ranks among 167 MLB catchers with 1000+ pitches caught, normalized for average pitches caught and converted to WAR by me:
Vazquez, 3rd (4.8 WAR per 120 games) Hanigan, 17th (2.8) Leon, 48th (1.0)
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 30, 2015 19:29:02 GMT -5
It's like putting a band aid on a cut to the jugular.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 31, 2015 6:06:26 GMT -5
The whole point is that all players are tradable if the trade improves the organization. In this case the Nationals had two similar players and could only keep one. Though Lobaton is more experienced.....if (Player X + Leon) > than Lobaton you would expect the Nationals to make that trade. Player X is obviously far less valuable than Mike Trout. Trying to trade for the backup catcher of the team projected to have the most wins in baseball is an exercise in futility/stupidity. They aren't going to weaken a spot on the team without another team massively overpaying and that isn't going to happen for any backup catcher. How would you know? You are completely wrong by the way.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 31, 2015 6:21:59 GMT -5
You are completely wrong by the way. How would you know? Perhaps you'd care to provide an example of this happening in the past?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 31, 2015 6:28:30 GMT -5
Trying to trade for the backup catcher of the team projected to have the most wins in baseball is an exercise in futility/stupidity. They aren't going to weaken a spot on the team without another team massively overpaying and that isn't going to happen for any backup catcher. How would you know? You are completely wrong by the way. Because it never happens. Or you can give me an example of a team that is pretty much universally thought of to be the best team in baseball before the season and trades away a player that creates a weakness on the team because another team massively overpays for their backup catcher who isn't considered more than a backup by anyone. And if it does happen, you're relying on a really stupid GM to exist which probably isn't going to be the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 31, 2015 6:50:43 GMT -5
It never happens because it's rare that a team has a third catcher who is out of options and is very similar to their backup catcher. I fail to see how replacing your backup catcher with a similar player creates much of a weakness at all. You make it sound like they are replacing Bryce Harper with Daniel Nava.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 31, 2015 6:51:58 GMT -5
You are completely wrong by the way. How would you know? Perhaps you'd care to provide an example of this happening in the past? Hey if Jim can make statements without any evidence to back up his claims I am perfectly capable of doing the same.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 31, 2015 7:08:30 GMT -5
How would you know? Perhaps you'd care to provide an example of this happening in the past? Hey if Jim can make statements without any evidence to back up his claims I am perfectly capable of doing the same. You want me to prove that overpaying for backup catchers on well positioned teams doesn't happen?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 31, 2015 7:48:45 GMT -5
You want me to prove that overpaying for backup catchers on well positioned teams doesn't happen? If you could prove, while you're at it, that Americans never landed on the moon, that would be pretty sweet.
|
|